menubar
Joined 13 years ago
Karma
3
Submissions
28
Member since
May 6
Joined 13 years ago
You can choose what you want to do rather than being bound to someone else's agenda.
I donate much more than 0.01% of my earnings to charities and nobody calls me a hero.
Who the heck does this Bill Gates guy think he is?
For example: http://www.reddit.com/r/Cinemagraphs/
Sorta like Microsoft Support Technicians.
So many folks here just enjoy announcing that their oh-so-delicate sensibilities have somehow been disturbed. Go outside, or turn up your TV if you really want stuff to be a petty bitch about.
Jesus hates you. Deal with it.
(please ignore this retarded comment, faaaagots)
In print publishing, all newspaper/magazine articles are typically space filler to direct your attention path to the accompanying ads.
With a decent sales staff and correct ad pricing there should be no reason to charge users to read an article online. Sure, printing costs are high, but repurposing content for online publication is cheaper by an order of magnitudes.
I've been in (newspaper/magazine) publishing over 30 years. I surfed through the waves of insanity when the internet started to become ubiquitous and publishers were pulling their hair out over fears that it would be the death of them. It's nothing more than an excuse for greed. It could have been handled properly by establishing ad revenue pricing structures early on, but it was easier for them to cry, complain and voluntarily remain ignorant of new tech while the owners of the publications bemoaned that their paper publication is not making enough money to stay afloat and keep their trophy wives in sport cars and designer jewelry at the same time.
I have no pity on these ignorant fools. If the New York Times goes bankrupt/offline it won't affect my life one bit. Other, more fiscally responsible individuals/organizations/bloggers will fill the niche and do it right.