The newspapers charge subscribers a token amount for the actual physical copy of the paper. The primary reason they charge subscribers for it is to give the advertisers (who are the real customers) some piece of mind that the subscribers actually care about receiving the paper, and are likely to see their advertisements.
I failed to mention that it is not necessary to charge a subscription fee on the Internet, because you have other methods that you can track whether, or not, your advertisers ads are being seen.
The delivery mechanism is the ONLY way you can get the news to the readers. If you don't care about that, then you aren't going to be in the news business long.
Newspapers sell advertising, not news. The delivery mechanism is how your advertisers' ads are seen. This is the most important part of getting the readers to view your news pages (regardless of whether they are printed, or digitally rendered on a screen). You want to sell ads to advertisers in order to make your profit.
News, Comics, Sports, etc. are things a newspaper does to make their subscribers want to receive their printed pages/or view the websites that contain the advertising. These things by themselves generate ZERO revenue. They are simply an expense, but they have to be done to have a product that people actually will pay attention to, and that advertisers will find value advertising in.
The newspapers charge subscribers a token amount for the actual physical copy of the paper. The primary reason they charge subscribers for it is to give the advertisers (who are the real customers) some piece of mind that the subscribers actually care about receiving the paper, and are likely to see their advertisements.
If the paper were free to readers, then there would be no way to measure the advertisements effectiveness because they would have no way to know how many people actually are really reading it, versus how many people just want it to line their bird cage.
It's not like the news will stop happening, and it's not like there won't be people out there reporting it. The names of the employers those reporters work for may change (from a newspaper to a company that has a good distribution model), or they may end up working free-lance, but their jobs won't just magically stop being necessary.
Newspapers create the actual text
No, they don't. They never have. The reporter/journalists create the text, and the editors edit it. These jobs are not going away, they are just going to different types of companies than the traditional newspaper role.
If there is a demand for news, someone will find a way to deliver it, and profit from it.
If a journalist is good at what they do, they will be paid accordingly. Whether they work free-lance, contract, or salaried, is irrelevant. They will be working for the modern-day news service that makes themselves relevant.
So, I really don't see this as much more than a DELIVERY method change, with some logistical changes sprinkled on top.
The companies that become redundant will fail. That doesn't mean the news will stop, and it doesn't mean there isn't a way for people/companies to profit from it.
I hope I haven't offended you personally, if so, sorry about that. This is not meant as a personal attack:
"Its a free service leeching off newspaper web sites who are paying for all the content Google is leeching."
You can call it leeching, but, I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that the newspaper site is getting a FREE PROMOTION from the link, too.
Google is driving people to your site (which is the hard part of Internet commerce), and it is your job to give that user a reason to say, "Hey, this looks like a good site, I wonder what else is here!"
If you don't accomplish that, how is that Google's fault? That's your failure. No one else's, especially when the viewer is spoon-fed to you.
As long as they have the river of money coming in from their search and ad business they can do stuff like that for free.
I'm not sure Google makes money on their search business, if so, I'm sure it is dwarfed by the advertising side. They are a serious player in the advertising business.
However, you seem to be saying that even though Google, and your newspaper are in the same business, you are jealous of the river of money they are making, but you are not willing to do what it takes to compete with them, or find different ways to do your job.
Your newspaper/news show/magazine's business is Advertising, and apparently, Google is a lot better at it than your newspaper/news show/magazine.
If I am reading between the lines correctly, you are saying that while it is okay for newspapers to have things that attract readers (e.g. Stories, Comics, Sports Pages, Editorials, or whatever other things that are in your paper that attract readers, but don't directly generate revenue), but it is not okay for Google to do other things to attract their readers (searchers)?
That is a double-standard if I'm reading it correctly.
As long as the newspapers pay all the bills for the content, Google doesn't need to monetize it.
If the newspaper is only paying for the content, ignoring (for all practical purposes) how to get users to use their web-site, and keep them coming back, then they are only doing half the job that is required. The company's transition to the digital news world is likely to fail.
I think Google is actually helping the newspaper here, not hurting it.
Anti-trust law was supposed to prevent people from abusing monopolies like that but its been so gutted it never does.
Google may be a giant in the market, and some pretty stiff competition, but, they certainly do not have a monopoly in either the search, or the advertising business.
The sooner that those whose business model is fading can recognize it, and make adjustments to remain relevant, the better chance they have to survive.
As I said, chances of it being available for free for much longer are not good. Newspapers are either going to fail, switch to a paid subscription model, or slowly fire and strangle all their reporters and end up being blogs. The trend for them turning in to mediocre blogs is already pretty prevalent.
You may be mostly right in terms of the past, and current business model. But, I still say that there are a lot of opportunities for journalists, editors, and anyone else who has a typical newspaper type job to roll with the punches, and innovate their way into a new business model that works.
Google News simply doesn't help any newspapers.
I don't see the newspapers clamoring to do much to help Google, either. You are in competing businesses. That's the reality, and I don't think it is unhealthy, it's competition.
You seem to have some stigma about blogs. I think the name Blog is dumb, but there are some really good ones out there. There are some really bad ones, too. They are just websites, created by people.
I just had a thought about this whole global warming thing. (Yes, it hurt my head.)
I'm willing to accept the alleged fact that the earth is getting warmer on the whole. But, I haven't heard anyone bring this tidbit up yet:
Could it be that the earth is becoming warmer because the number of heat engines that populate the planet has continued to increase significantly.
Perhaps that there are so many more heat producing humans on the planet than previously existed might have something to do with it? I can't imagine that this wouldn't at least be a contributing factor.
Culturally people will always pick the units they feel are best for what they're doing
This is true, however, it strikes me as odd that the metric heights that are referred to in other parts of this discussion refer to a person's height in straight meters. I would think that a much more appropriate (and descriptive) unit would be centimeters. 1.6m compared to 160cm.
The main advantage to me of the metric system has been the prefixes which allow for having only one unit for each type of measurement, and then simply using powers of 10 to deal with very large or small numbers. This doesn't apply in temperatures, no one uses kilodegrees.
I was all set to jump on you with "Centigrade". Then, I decided to look it up. I found some interesting info here: Centigrade
It just dawned on me that the point the GP was making was about the skew, or way the statistics looked, depending on which format was used. I was looking at it from the point of which format do I find more useful in day-to-day life.
You can change up how the efficiency ratio looks (until you actually solve the calculations), and have it appear as menacing, or benign as you like. People present information to their benefit, and others detriment, all the time.
At the end of the day, you are still only going to X number of miles down the road with a gallon/liter/beertruck of fuel. People need to finish the calculation if they want a clear picture of what reality is for them. Then they need to look critically at the process that determines the efficiency rating.
So, to follow the example: "Green" vehicle under the old process will travel 1 mile using.00160 gallons of fuel. "Green" vehicle under the new process will travel 1 mile using.00200 gallons of fuel. "Other" vehicle under the old process will travel 1 mile using.00555 gallons of fuel. "Other" vehicle under the new process will travel 1 mile using.00625 gallons of fuel.
The big question that pops into my head is simply, "How did they get the measurements so wrong?", followed by, "Can either measurement process be trusted?"
Hmmm... I will probably look like a moron to most people with these questions... (Forgive my ignorance... I can be quite dense at times.)
First off, gallons per 100 miles is a much, much better metric than miles per gallon anyway, because the numbers get skewed much less on high mileage cars.
I'm having a lot of difficulty grasping the significance of how measuring in (volume)/(distance) is superior to (distance)/(volume) in any way.
If the efficiencies are not erroneous in the first place, shouldn't the efficiency be consistent when the format is reversed? And, shouldn't it simply be a matter of which format makes the most sense for the purpose of the measurement?
For me, measuring in (distance)/(volume) makes it a lot simpler to know my vehicle's range, and I find it very easy to plan fuel stops accordingly. (I really like to avoid walking twenty miles to the next gas station, and back, if it can be avoided.)
If I am concerned about vehicle efficiency when making a purchasing decision, I think the (distance)/(volume) rating works pretty well for comparisons. So, what is being gained by changing it?
If I want to know how much it fuel will be needed to go from point A to point B, the math is not hard to do in either format.
When the mileage calculations were redone a few years ago, a car that was 60 miles per gallon might have been recalculated to be just 50 miles per gallon. A car that previously was calculated at 18 miles per gallon was recalculated to be 16 MPG.
That makes it look like high-mileage cards are overrated and overhyped, right, while normal cars are more realistic. And yet, looking at the same numbers in terms of gallons per 100 miles, you get: "green" car: 1.66 g/100mi becomes 2.0 g/100mi "other" car: 5.55 g/100mi becomes 6.25 g/100mi
Looking at it this way, it's clear that the change affected the "other" car more, in that the increase in gas required per mile driven is actually worse going from 18 to 16 MPG (5.55 to 6.25 g/100mi) than it is from 60 to 50 MPG (1.66 to 2.0 g/100mi).
I really don't grasp (in either case) how the numbers changed unless the measurements were completely inaccurate to start with. (volume)/(distance) is still (volume)/(distance), and the numbers should still be the same if measured correctly both times.
I think the parent post is not trolling. And I don't think that he is trying to insult anyone, either. In this economy, a lot of people are being forced to take jobs that they wouldn't want in a good economy.
It's very similar to the IT job market at the moment. Where former directors with all kinds of degrees, and experience, are being forced by the economy to take regular old sysadmin jobs, and well-credentialed sysadmins are taking jobs on the hell desk. The hell desk schmucks are taking janitorial positions, and the janitors are becoming journalists. (Just kidding on that last one.:))
Your alternatives are fine, assuming that those companies choose to get into the business of aggregation for real. Honestly, I think there is plenty of room for new blood to come onto the scene, and do the aggregation business even better. Maybe they will choose to do business directly with the journalists, maybe they will choose to do business with other companies that make a business of buying and selling access to news stories from journalists. Who knows? There are an amazing amount of possible paths that may occur. One thing is for sure, someone, or some company, will come up with a system that works.
Google being a leading news aggregator once again suggests Google should be funding journalists.
I disagree with you on this point.
Google is providing a service to computer users which consists of finding the news stories that they think people will find interesting. For that service, Google makes money from the advertising they sell, and points readers to the news site for free.
As long as the news story is available for free, the publishers should be happy about this, as finding their story would be like finding a needle in a haystack without services like Google's. Unless the publishers have one helluva great advertising program (which none of them seem to have figured out) that drives viewers to their own site, having their story visible from Google is actually driving viewers to their site (allowing them to view their advertisers ads when they otherwise would not likely ever see them). Google could actually charge for this service, and some publishers would pay for it.
Not sure Craigslist makes enough money to support any journalists but they kind of owe a debt to society for destroying newspapers and journalism.
Again, I disagree here. Craigslist, and others like it, have pretty much killed the old-school classifieds, but they have also improved them in significant ways. You are suggesting that Craigslist should be penalized for innovation. I don't buy it. Why don't these publishers take their classifieds online, show advertising, and offer the classified ads for free? Because they wanted to sell them. The market no longer bears this, and they need to compete, or or give it up.
Last I checked, Craigslist does not have anything that even comes close to news, so why is it that they should be asked to support journalists?
I seriously doubt news aggregators are going to pay enough to keep journalists afloat out of their business model. I think they pay some for access to AP and Reuters but I doubt its enough to support healthy journalism. I doubt Google News makes any money now and the only reason it exists is because its leaching off all the news the online newspapers are giving them for free and which is costing them a lot of money to produce. All the online news sources fold so do aggregators.
Do you have any actual evidence to back this up? I don't either.
I think what will happen is that there will be people who step in and recognize the opportunity to provide news on the Internet in ways that will be valuable, and will find innovative ways to make it work. The news model may change drastically, but, the news will be delivered.
Sorry if I come across like I'm ragging on you. You bring up some good points. I'll try to give you my perspective on them.
How many blogs actually make money? Now take all the ones that only do shock and schlock. Yea. I can't think of any either.
I responded to a poster below that I don't think the general public buys the blog idea for news either. I think they will depend on Yahoo, Google News, etc. for their news sources. If there is something local that people care about then they may bookmark some blogs that they know are locals, but, I'd be willing to suspect that the local info won't be all that hard to find out about. (Gossip, going to a town meeting, getting involved in your community, picking up the telephone, looking at the school district's web site, etc.)
Journalism is a professional career. They go to school to learn to do all this crap, and then they go out and practically apply that knowledge. Some of it they do because they love it, but in the end, they're looking for a paycheck and health insurance.
Just like every other career in the world (regardless of the Professional qualifier). If you are an assembly line worker that is replaced by a robot, you're pretty much in the same boat. You are losing your job to progress. It sucks, but that's life.
Worse, in-depth stuff can take weeks and months (and, very occasionally years) to research. Who pays their salary during that time? How do their kids eat?
Anyone who has a job where they have to wait weeks, or months, or years, for a paycheck should not take on a job like that without making sure their bases are covered first. This is responsibility, and if they have kids, it is mandatory (or should be, anyway).
When they do break the next huge amazing story after 6 months of digging through public records on their own dime, how do they get compensated for their time? You going to buy a t-shirt?
It depends. Is the huge amazing story related to some pop star that picked their nose in a courtroom during their cocaine trial? I'm not gonna buy the T-shirt. Is the huge amazing story something that is going to change peoples lives with the relevation (e.g. High Court Judge caught taking bribes from Mafia.), then yes, they deserve to sell the rights to their story to the highest bidder. And the highest bidder will likely pay handsomely.
Real journalism takes money. This wasn't traditionally a problem, because people were generally willing to fork a modest fee for reliable information. But now the internets have come and saved everyone from the burden of being able to make a living by generating information.
All enterprises take money. It has alway been a problem, but, the problem is expected, planned for, and overcome. Otherwise, you are not going to remain in business. The Internet has nothing to do with it. You would have the same problem if you worked for an old-fashioned newspaper in your town, if a modern-day, more efficient newspaper came to town. It's called competition, and you either compete, or you roll over.
In my experience, journalists are a bit like lawyers. They all want to do the right thing when they're getting started, want to fight for truth, and expose corruption. But eventually, they get beaten down by people who think they're always lying, always dishonest...People who give a quote, and then sue because they end up looking bad. . And after enough of that, they say, "Fuck this low paying shit, I'm going to put this knowledge and experience to work for money." And then they go work for a politician, or a corporation, or a lobbying firm.
This speaks towards the attitudes of people that are on the whole reinforced by our society. I feel bad for people who have to go through this, but I can't say I've met many other people, in many other fields, who don't go through their own version of this...
Okay, so what is your alternative? Pandora's box is already open. There is no going back.
Don't you think that there will be more evolutions in the journalism industry? Internet news delivery is a really young enterprise. You have to expect that there will be a real learning curve to deal with (for everyone - Consumers, Publishers, and Journalists).
I think that the general public knows blogs are not the answer. I think they will gravitate towards news aggregation that do a good job of presenting the news that is relevant to them. Those that prove to do a bad job of this will eventually fail.
I think the avenue for the professional journalist is to sell his/her services to the news aggregation companies. Supply and demand will determine what this is worth.
Journalism's future lies in their ability to bring product that the public finds worthwhile to the marketplace.
What!?! Do you really believe that the news content on the Internet will just dry up when the outdated news delivery models fold?
I don't. I think we may enter a transition period where it may be slightly harder to find the news, but, you can bet those companies that are shrewd enough to survive, and those enterprising individuals that would have simply started a newspaper way back when, will find a way to get the news out professionally on the Internet.
Those entities will succeed by presenting the news in a manner that people find valuable, and people will pay for it in one form, or another (most likely advertising, and/or subscriptions, just like the old-school newspapers).
No matter how many bloggers/wannabe journalists are out there, there will still be an economically feasible way for real journalism, too. It will be found, and it will do just fine.
If you have something that is digital (or easily digitized) that you don't want to be copied, it is up to you to come up with a method of distributing it where you make sure you get paid, or the people who want it don't get the product.
As much as we'd like to see it, you can't legislate morality, and if you try to do that, good luck enforcing it.
I think that the best bet would be a modified version of the recording companies (as they were 30 years ago), except that the distribution model has changed.
So I guess the right message to send is the one to the distributors of content to get with the program, and start distributing these things in a modern-day efficient manner.
On the other hand I would REALLY like for someone to figure out a way for journalism to be a viable career, and to insure there are substantial numbers of professional investigative journalists digging up stories in the world precisely because it make people sweat who don't wan those stories dug up.
Okay, I nominate YOU to accomplish this. (By the way, TREES are one of the few natural resources that DO grow back.)
I would love to make sure Good Journalism is rewarded, too. The question is how?
The answers lie somewhere on the Internet. What good journalists will be motivated to start news blogs? Who will find them valuable enough to subscribe to them? If no one wants to subscribe, should they pursue advertising? How will they deal with gifted amateurs who don't feel the need to charge?
Subsidizing the newspaper empires is completely nuts! If they can't evolve with the rest of the world, they are doomed.
They should get paid for it, and if they are good at it get paid well.
As I typed indignantly to a content creator earlier today, "You don't deserve to get paid for the stuff you create. You deserve to get paid for the things you create that people find valuable enough to pay you for it." If the newspapers/journalists can't understand this idea, then they need to find alternate means of earning a living.
This is the real beauty of the Internet based news model.
Unless you are unfortunate enough not to have access to the Internet, you have turned a town with potentially biased news sources into a town with hundreds/thousands/millions of news sources.
Granted, many of these sources are biased, and you have to employ your critical thinking skills to separate the wheat from the chaff, but, you have an incredible amount of exposure to the real world that you would have never found in the one/two/twelve-paper town, and you will have a much better idea of what is really happening, instead of taking whatever view is presented to you.
I'm really kind of glad that the traditional newspaper model looks to be on the way out.
While I agree that solar is not exactly cost competitive, are you taking into account the costs that can be saved by not having to run your coal plant? Not just the actual cost of operation, but the environmental costs, too? . (I don't have the answer, but it seems to me that every solar installation that goes in reduces those costs, too.)
Not to take anything away from what you said but I think you meant -40 F. . In all seriousness, there are some seriously fucked-up people in this world.
Slashdot Mirror
The newspapers charge subscribers a token amount for the actual physical copy of the paper. The primary reason they charge subscribers for it is to give the advertisers (who are the real customers) some piece of mind that the subscribers actually care about receiving the paper, and are likely to see their advertisements.
I failed to mention that it is not necessary to charge a subscription fee on the Internet, because you have other methods that you can track whether, or not, your advertisers ads are being seen.
News delivery...Who gives a shit about that?
The delivery mechanism is the ONLY way you can get the news to the readers. If you don't care about that, then you aren't going to be in the news business long.
Newspapers sell advertising, not news. The delivery mechanism is how your advertisers' ads are seen. This is the most important part of getting the readers to view your news pages (regardless of whether they are printed, or digitally rendered on a screen). You want to sell ads to advertisers in order to make your profit.
News, Comics, Sports, etc. are things a newspaper does to make their subscribers want to receive their printed pages/or view the websites that contain the advertising. These things by themselves generate ZERO revenue. They are simply an expense, but they have to be done to have a product that people actually will pay attention to, and that advertisers will find value advertising in.
The newspapers charge subscribers a token amount for the actual physical copy of the paper. The primary reason they charge subscribers for it is to give the advertisers (who are the real customers) some piece of mind that the subscribers actually care about receiving the paper, and are likely to see their advertisements.
If the paper were free to readers, then there would be no way to measure the advertisements effectiveness because they would have no way to know how many people actually are really reading it, versus how many people just want it to line their bird cage.
It's not like the news will stop happening, and it's not like there won't be people out there reporting it. The names of the employers those reporters work for may change (from a newspaper to a company that has a good distribution model), or they may end up working free-lance, but their jobs won't just magically stop being necessary.
Newspapers create the actual text
No, they don't. They never have. The reporter/journalists create the text, and the editors edit it. These jobs are not going away, they are just going to different types of companies than the traditional newspaper role.
If there is a demand for news, someone will find a way to deliver it, and profit from it.
If a journalist is good at what they do, they will be paid accordingly. Whether they work free-lance, contract, or salaried, is irrelevant. They will be working for the modern-day news service that makes themselves relevant.
So, I really don't see this as much more than a DELIVERY method change, with some logistical changes sprinkled on top.
The companies that become redundant will fail. That doesn't mean the news will stop, and it doesn't mean there isn't a way for people/companies to profit from it.
I hope I haven't offended you personally, if so, sorry about that. This is not meant as a personal attack:
"Its a free service leeching off newspaper web sites who are paying for all the content Google is leeching."
You can call it leeching, but, I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that the newspaper site is getting a FREE PROMOTION from the link, too.
Google is driving people to your site (which is the hard part of Internet commerce), and it is your job to give that user a reason to say, "Hey, this looks like a good site, I wonder what else is here!"
If you don't accomplish that, how is that Google's fault? That's your failure. No one else's, especially when the viewer is spoon-fed to you.
As long as they have the river of money coming in from their search and ad business they can do stuff like that for free.
I'm not sure Google makes money on their search business, if so, I'm sure it is dwarfed by the advertising side. They are a serious player in the advertising business.
However, you seem to be saying that even though Google, and your newspaper are in the same business, you are jealous of the river of money they are making, but you are not willing to do what it takes to compete with them, or find different ways to do your job.
Your newspaper/news show/magazine's business is Advertising, and apparently, Google is a lot better at it than your newspaper/news show/magazine.
If I am reading between the lines correctly, you are saying that while it is okay for newspapers to have things that attract readers (e.g. Stories, Comics, Sports Pages, Editorials, or whatever other things that are in your paper that attract readers, but don't directly generate revenue), but it is not okay for Google to do other things to attract their readers (searchers)?
That is a double-standard if I'm reading it correctly.
As long as the newspapers pay all the bills for the content, Google doesn't need to monetize it.
If the newspaper is only paying for the content, ignoring (for all practical purposes) how to get users to use their web-site, and keep them coming back, then they are only doing half the job that is required. The company's transition to the digital news world is likely to fail.
I think Google is actually helping the newspaper here, not hurting it.
Anti-trust law was supposed to prevent people from abusing monopolies like that but its been so gutted it never does.
Google may be a giant in the market, and some pretty stiff competition, but, they certainly do not have a monopoly in either the search, or the advertising business.
The sooner that those whose business model is fading can recognize it, and make adjustments to remain relevant, the better chance they have to survive.
As I said, chances of it being available for free for much longer are not good. Newspapers are either going to fail, switch to a paid subscription model, or slowly fire and strangle all their reporters and end up being blogs. The trend for them turning in to mediocre blogs is already pretty prevalent.
You may be mostly right in terms of the past, and current business model. But, I still say that there are a lot of opportunities for journalists, editors, and anyone else who has a typical newspaper type job to roll with the punches, and innovate their way into a new business model that works.
Google News simply doesn't help any newspapers.
I don't see the newspapers clamoring to do much to help Google, either. You are in competing businesses. That's the reality, and I don't think it is unhealthy, it's competition.
You seem to have some stigma about blogs. I think the name Blog is dumb, but there are some really good ones out there. There are some really bad ones, too. They are just websites, created by people.
A lot of people will be looki
Have you ever driven by a feed lot, and seen those great big long piles of manure with airtight coverings on them?
That's exactly what they are doing.
I just had a thought about this whole global warming thing. (Yes, it hurt my head.)
I'm willing to accept the alleged fact that the earth is getting warmer on the whole. But, I haven't heard anyone bring this tidbit up yet:
Could it be that the earth is becoming warmer because the number of heat engines that populate the planet has continued to increase significantly.
Perhaps that there are so many more heat producing humans on the planet than previously existed might have something to do with it? I can't imagine that this wouldn't at least be a contributing factor.
Yeah, but they used the wrong units of measure.
I want to know why it's not being modded as trolling...
Culturally people will always pick the units they feel are best for what they're doing
This is true, however, it strikes me as odd that the metric heights that are referred to in other parts of this discussion refer to a person's height in straight meters. I would think that a much more appropriate (and descriptive) unit would be centimeters. 1.6m compared to 160cm.
The main advantage to me of the metric system has been the prefixes which allow for having only one unit for each type of measurement, and then simply using powers of 10 to deal with very large or small numbers. This doesn't apply in temperatures, no one uses kilodegrees.
I was all set to jump on you with "Centigrade". Then, I decided to look it up. I found some interesting info here:
Centigrade
It just dawned on me that the point the GP was making was about the skew, or way the statistics looked, depending on which format was used. I was looking at it from the point of which format do I find more useful in day-to-day life.
You can change up how the efficiency ratio looks (until you actually solve the calculations), and have it appear as menacing, or benign as you like. People present information to their benefit, and others detriment, all the time.
At the end of the day, you are still only going to X number of miles down the road with a gallon/liter/beertruck of fuel. People need to finish the calculation if they want a clear picture of what reality is for them. Then they need to look critically at the process that determines the efficiency rating.
So, to follow the example: .00160 gallons of fuel. .00200 gallons of fuel. .00555 gallons of fuel. .00625 gallons of fuel.
"Green" vehicle under the old process will travel 1 mile using
"Green" vehicle under the new process will travel 1 mile using
"Other" vehicle under the old process will travel 1 mile using
"Other" vehicle under the new process will travel 1 mile using
The big question that pops into my head is simply, "How did they get the measurements so wrong?", followed by, "Can either measurement process be trusted?"
Hmmm... I will probably look like a moron to most people with these questions... (Forgive my ignorance... I can be quite dense at times.)
First off, gallons per 100 miles is a much, much better metric than miles per gallon anyway, because the numbers get skewed much less on high mileage cars.
I'm having a lot of difficulty grasping the significance of how measuring in (volume)/(distance) is superior to (distance)/(volume) in any way.
If the efficiencies are not erroneous in the first place, shouldn't the efficiency be consistent when the format is reversed? And, shouldn't it simply be a matter of which format makes the most sense for the purpose of the measurement?
For me, measuring in (distance)/(volume) makes it a lot simpler to know my vehicle's range, and I find it very easy to plan fuel stops accordingly. (I really like to avoid walking twenty miles to the next gas station, and back, if it can be avoided.)
If I am concerned about vehicle efficiency when making a purchasing decision, I think the (distance)/(volume) rating works pretty well for comparisons. So, what is being gained by changing it?
If I want to know how much it fuel will be needed to go from point A to point B, the math is not hard to do in either format.
When the mileage calculations were redone a few years ago, a car that was 60 miles per gallon might have been recalculated to be just 50 miles per gallon. A car that previously was calculated at 18 miles per gallon was recalculated to be 16 MPG.
That makes it look like high-mileage cards are overrated and overhyped, right, while normal cars are more realistic. And yet, looking at the same numbers in terms of gallons per 100 miles, you get:
"green" car: 1.66 g/100mi becomes 2.0 g/100mi
"other" car: 5.55 g/100mi becomes 6.25 g/100mi
Looking at it this way, it's clear that the change affected the "other" car more, in that the increase in gas required per mile driven is actually worse going from 18 to 16 MPG (5.55 to 6.25 g/100mi) than it is from 60 to 50 MPG (1.66 to 2.0 g/100mi).
I really don't grasp (in either case) how the numbers changed unless the measurements were completely inaccurate to start with. (volume)/(distance) is still (volume)/(distance), and the numbers should still be the same if measured correctly both times.
What am I missing here?
I think the parent post is not trolling. And I don't think that he is trying to insult anyone, either. In this economy, a lot of people are being forced to take jobs that they wouldn't want in a good economy.
It's very similar to the IT job market at the moment. Where former directors with all kinds of degrees, and experience, are being forced by the economy to take regular old sysadmin jobs, and well-credentialed sysadmins are taking jobs on the hell desk. The hell desk schmucks are taking janitorial positions, and the janitors are becoming journalists. (Just kidding on that last one. :))
Your alternatives are fine, assuming that those companies choose to get into the business of aggregation for real. Honestly, I think there is plenty of room for new blood to come onto the scene, and do the aggregation business even better. Maybe they will choose to do business directly with the journalists, maybe they will choose to do business with other companies that make a business of buying and selling access to news stories from journalists. Who knows? There are an amazing amount of possible paths that may occur. One thing is for sure, someone, or some company, will come up with a system that works.
Google being a leading news aggregator once again suggests Google should be funding journalists.
I disagree with you on this point.
Google is providing a service to computer users which consists of finding the news stories that they think people will find interesting. For that service, Google makes money from the advertising they sell, and points readers to the news site for free.
As long as the news story is available for free, the publishers should be happy about this, as finding their story would be like finding a needle in a haystack without services like Google's. Unless the publishers have one helluva great advertising program (which none of them seem to have figured out) that drives viewers to their own site, having their story visible from Google is actually driving viewers to their site (allowing them to view their advertisers ads when they otherwise would not likely ever see them). Google could actually charge for this service, and some publishers would pay for it.
Not sure Craigslist makes enough money to support any journalists but they kind of owe a debt to society for destroying newspapers and journalism.
Again, I disagree here. Craigslist, and others like it, have pretty much killed the old-school classifieds, but they have also improved them in significant ways. You are suggesting that Craigslist should be penalized for innovation. I don't buy it. Why don't these publishers take their classifieds online, show advertising, and offer the classified ads for free? Because they wanted to sell them. The market no longer bears this, and they need to compete, or or give it up.
Last I checked, Craigslist does not have anything that even comes close to news, so why is it that they should be asked to support journalists?
I seriously doubt news aggregators are going to pay enough to keep journalists afloat out of their business model. I think they pay some for access to AP and Reuters but I doubt its enough to support healthy journalism. I doubt Google News makes any money now and the only reason it exists is because its leaching off all the news the online newspapers are giving them for free and which is costing them a lot of money to produce. All the online news sources fold so do aggregators.
Do you have any actual evidence to back this up? I don't either.
I think what will happen is that there will be people who step in and recognize the opportunity to provide news on the Internet in ways that will be valuable, and will find innovative ways to make it work. The news model may change drastically, but, the news will be delivered.
Sorry if I come across like I'm ragging on you. You bring up some good points. I'll try to give you my perspective on them.
How many blogs actually make money? Now take all the ones that only do shock and schlock. Yea. I can't think of any either.
I responded to a poster below that I don't think the general public buys the blog idea for news either. I think they will depend on Yahoo, Google News, etc. for their news sources. If there is something local that people care about then they may bookmark some blogs that they know are locals, but, I'd be willing to suspect that the local info won't be all that hard to find out about. (Gossip, going to a town meeting, getting involved in your community, picking up the telephone, looking at the school district's web site, etc.)
Journalism is a professional career. They go to school to learn to do all this crap, and then they go out and practically apply that knowledge. Some of it they do because they love it, but in the end, they're looking for a paycheck and health insurance.
Just like every other career in the world (regardless of the Professional qualifier). If you are an assembly line worker that is replaced by a robot, you're pretty much in the same boat. You are losing your job to progress. It sucks, but that's life.
Worse, in-depth stuff can take weeks and months (and, very occasionally years) to research. Who pays their salary during that time? How do their kids eat?
Anyone who has a job where they have to wait weeks, or months, or years, for a paycheck should not take on a job like that without making sure their bases are covered first. This is responsibility, and if they have kids, it is mandatory (or should be, anyway).
When they do break the next huge amazing story after 6 months of digging through public records on their own dime, how do they get compensated for their time? You going to buy a t-shirt?
It depends. Is the huge amazing story related to some pop star that picked their nose in a courtroom during their cocaine trial? I'm not gonna buy the T-shirt. Is the huge amazing story something that is going to change peoples lives with the relevation (e.g. High Court Judge caught taking bribes from Mafia.), then yes, they deserve to sell the rights to their story to the highest bidder. And the highest bidder will likely pay handsomely.
Real journalism takes money. This wasn't traditionally a problem, because people were generally willing to fork a modest fee for reliable information. But now the internets have come and saved everyone from the burden of being able to make a living by generating information.
All enterprises take money. It has alway been a problem, but, the problem is expected, planned for, and overcome. Otherwise, you are not going to remain in business. The Internet has nothing to do with it. You would have the same problem if you worked for an old-fashioned newspaper in your town, if a modern-day, more efficient newspaper came to town. It's called competition, and you either compete, or you roll over.
In my experience, journalists are a bit like lawyers. They all want to do the right thing when they're getting started, want to fight for truth, and expose corruption. But eventually, they get beaten down by people who think they're always lying, always dishonest...People who give a quote, and then sue because they end up looking bad.
.
And after enough of that, they say, "Fuck this low paying shit, I'm going to put this knowledge and experience to work for money." And then they go work for a politician, or a corporation, or a lobbying firm.
This speaks towards the attitudes of people that are on the whole reinforced by our society. I feel bad for people who have to go through this, but I can't say I've met many other people, in many other fields, who don't go through their own version of this...
Okay, so what is your alternative? Pandora's box is already open. There is no going back.
Don't you think that there will be more evolutions in the journalism industry? Internet news delivery is a really young enterprise. You have to expect that there will be a real learning curve to deal with (for everyone - Consumers, Publishers, and Journalists).
I think that the general public knows blogs are not the answer. I think they will gravitate towards news aggregation that do a good job of presenting the news that is relevant to them. Those that prove to do a bad job of this will eventually fail.
I think the avenue for the professional journalist is to sell his/her services to the news aggregation companies. Supply and demand will determine what this is worth.
Journalism's future lies in their ability to bring product that the public finds worthwhile to the marketplace.
What!?! Do you really believe that the news content on the Internet will just dry up when the outdated news delivery models fold?
I don't. I think we may enter a transition period where it may be slightly harder to find the news, but, you can bet those companies that are shrewd enough to survive, and those enterprising individuals that would have simply started a newspaper way back when, will find a way to get the news out professionally on the Internet.
Those entities will succeed by presenting the news in a manner that people find valuable, and people will pay for it in one form, or another (most likely advertising, and/or subscriptions, just like the old-school newspapers).
No matter how many bloggers/wannabe journalists are out there, there will still be an economically feasible way for real journalism, too. It will be found, and it will do just fine.
If it's really news, it will be available.
If you have something that is digital (or easily digitized) that you don't want to be copied, it is up to you to come up with a method of distributing it where you make sure you get paid, or the people who want it don't get the product.
As much as we'd like to see it, you can't legislate morality, and if you try to do that, good luck enforcing it.
I think that the best bet would be a modified version of the recording companies (as they were 30 years ago), except that the distribution model has changed.
So I guess the right message to send is the one to the distributors of content to get with the program, and start distributing these things in a modern-day efficient manner.
On the other hand I would REALLY like for someone to figure out a way for journalism to be a viable career, and to insure there are substantial numbers of professional investigative journalists digging up stories in the world precisely because it make people sweat who don't wan those stories dug up.
Okay, I nominate YOU to accomplish this. (By the way, TREES are one of the few natural resources that DO grow back.)
I would love to make sure Good Journalism is rewarded, too. The question is how?
The answers lie somewhere on the Internet. What good journalists will be motivated to start news blogs? Who will find them valuable enough to subscribe to them? If no one wants to subscribe, should they pursue advertising? How will they deal with gifted amateurs who don't feel the need to charge?
Subsidizing the newspaper empires is completely nuts! If they can't evolve with the rest of the world, they are doomed.
They should get paid for it, and if they are good at it get paid well.
As I typed indignantly to a content creator earlier today, "You don't deserve to get paid for the stuff you create. You deserve to get paid for the things you create that people find valuable enough to pay you for it." If the newspapers/journalists can't understand this idea, then they need to find alternate means of earning a living.
This is the real beauty of the Internet based news model.
Unless you are unfortunate enough not to have access to the Internet, you have turned a town with potentially biased news sources into a town with hundreds/thousands/millions of news sources.
Granted, many of these sources are biased, and you have to employ your critical thinking skills to separate the wheat from the chaff, but, you have an incredible amount of exposure to the real world that you would have never found in the one/two/twelve-paper town, and you will have a much better idea of what is really happening, instead of taking whatever view is presented to you.
I'm really kind of glad that the traditional newspaper model looks to be on the way out.
Damn those C and D batteries are expensive, aren't they?
While I agree that solar is not exactly cost competitive, are you taking into account the costs that can be saved by not having to run your coal plant? Not just the actual cost of operation, but the environmental costs, too?
.
(I don't have the answer, but it seems to me that every solar installation that goes in reduces those costs, too.)
You need one more S word at the end of your sig to spell success correctly.
Interestingly enough (or not), my GMail spam has roughly increased ten-fold since I logged in with my slashdot account again (two days ago).
I haven't used the slashdot account (tied to my GMail address) in a couple of years... Coincidence?
You don't deserve to get paid for all the stuff you create!
You deserve to get paid for the things you create that people find valuable enough to pay you for.
Not to take anything away from what you said but I think you meant -40 F.
.
In all seriousness, there are some seriously fucked-up people in this world.