<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_21_1315223</id>
	<title>The Newspaper Isn't Dead Yet</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1245593820000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="mailto:theodp@aol.com" rel="nofollow">theodp</a> writes <i>"Slate's Farhad Manjoo had high hopes for using the Kindle DX &mdash; Amazon's new large-screen e-reader &mdash; to read newspapers. A good first effort, says Manjoo, who concludes that for now <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2220793/">newsprint still beats the $489 Kindle</a>. While he has issues with latency, what he really misses relates to graphic design. The Kindle <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/rmohns/3403364070/sizes/o/in/set-72157616107661465/">presents news as a list</a>, leaving a reader to guess which pieces are most important to read. Newspapers, by contrast, opine on the importance of the day's news using easy-to-understand design conventions &mdash; important stories appear on front pages, with the most important ones going higher on the page and getting more space and bigger headlines. Also, because of its overnight delivery model, Manjoo gripes that the Kindle suffers from a lack of timeliness, making it <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/services/mobile/iphone.html">not even as good as a smartphone</a>."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>theodp writes " Slate 's Farhad Manjoo had high hopes for using the Kindle DX    Amazon 's new large-screen e-reader    to read newspapers .
A good first effort , says Manjoo , who concludes that for now newsprint still beats the $ 489 Kindle .
While he has issues with latency , what he really misses relates to graphic design .
The Kindle presents news as a list , leaving a reader to guess which pieces are most important to read .
Newspapers , by contrast , opine on the importance of the day 's news using easy-to-understand design conventions    important stories appear on front pages , with the most important ones going higher on the page and getting more space and bigger headlines .
Also , because of its overnight delivery model , Manjoo gripes that the Kindle suffers from a lack of timeliness , making it not even as good as a smartphone .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>theodp writes "Slate's Farhad Manjoo had high hopes for using the Kindle DX — Amazon's new large-screen e-reader — to read newspapers.
A good first effort, says Manjoo, who concludes that for now newsprint still beats the $489 Kindle.
While he has issues with latency, what he really misses relates to graphic design.
The Kindle presents news as a list, leaving a reader to guess which pieces are most important to read.
Newspapers, by contrast, opine on the importance of the day's news using easy-to-understand design conventions — important stories appear on front pages, with the most important ones going higher on the page and getting more space and bigger headlines.
Also, because of its overnight delivery model, Manjoo gripes that the Kindle suffers from a lack of timeliness, making it not even as good as a smartphone.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28411857</id>
	<title>Re:The real problem is marginal cost</title>
	<author>zenspeaks</author>
	<datestamp>1245608820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>However, you need to factor in the element that a good chunk of news that comes on to smaller newspapers is syndicated content from a Reuters or AP...!</htmltext>
<tokenext>However , you need to factor in the element that a good chunk of news that comes on to smaller newspapers is syndicated content from a Reuters or AP... !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However, you need to factor in the element that a good chunk of news that comes on to smaller newspapers is syndicated content from a Reuters or AP...!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28410615</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28410671</id>
	<title>Newspaper industry needs help!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245599220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They need help getting lead out of the woods. They got lost when all this "new" technology started appearing.... about the end of last century...</p><p>How could they not have figured out by now how to deliver their content to readers electronically using micro payments or subscriptions... </p><p>No you don't need a kindle to read an electronic document ffs. Shouldn't our cellphones suffice? We can charge the micro transaction with "minutes" by sending SMS. Get a SMS back with a code we can enter on their website from any computer to view the article. Or have it email delivered to an email capable headset.</p><p>Get the ball rolling on something, or you will die and it will be your own fault. This is no time to be deer in headlights.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They need help getting lead out of the woods .
They got lost when all this " new " technology started appearing.... about the end of last century...How could they not have figured out by now how to deliver their content to readers electronically using micro payments or subscriptions... No you do n't need a kindle to read an electronic document ffs .
Should n't our cellphones suffice ?
We can charge the micro transaction with " minutes " by sending SMS .
Get a SMS back with a code we can enter on their website from any computer to view the article .
Or have it email delivered to an email capable headset.Get the ball rolling on something , or you will die and it will be your own fault .
This is no time to be deer in headlights .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They need help getting lead out of the woods.
They got lost when all this "new" technology started appearing.... about the end of last century...How could they not have figured out by now how to deliver their content to readers electronically using micro payments or subscriptions... No you don't need a kindle to read an electronic document ffs.
Shouldn't our cellphones suffice?
We can charge the micro transaction with "minutes" by sending SMS.
Get a SMS back with a code we can enter on their website from any computer to view the article.
Or have it email delivered to an email capable headset.Get the ball rolling on something, or you will die and it will be your own fault.
This is no time to be deer in headlights.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28412197</id>
	<title>Re:Newspapers on the Kindle</title>
	<author>runstopwire</author>
	<datestamp>1245611460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've owned a Kindle 2 for three weeks. I subscribe to the NY Times on it. Having it automatically delivered to the Kindle every morning is great! I don't even need to get out of bed. I spend about an hour each morning reading the articles. I don't use the table of contents; I prefer to read linearly from front to back. Doing so has certainly led me to read many more articles than I normally would have using something like Google News. It's this kind of "serendipitous reading" that makes reading a magazine or newspaper so much more enjoyable than cherry-picking articles on a website. If the article is accompanied by a compelling picture, I'm even more likely to read it.</p><p>
The news industry is gravely worried that ability for websites and our browsers to filter and deliver exactly the kind of information we are specifically interested in will negatively impact our society in the long run. Sure, I can focus your reading to just the articles I like, but that's the problem: I'd rarely read alternative viewpoints or stumble across previously-unknown subjects. It's been a real pleasure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've owned a Kindle 2 for three weeks .
I subscribe to the NY Times on it .
Having it automatically delivered to the Kindle every morning is great !
I do n't even need to get out of bed .
I spend about an hour each morning reading the articles .
I do n't use the table of contents ; I prefer to read linearly from front to back .
Doing so has certainly led me to read many more articles than I normally would have using something like Google News .
It 's this kind of " serendipitous reading " that makes reading a magazine or newspaper so much more enjoyable than cherry-picking articles on a website .
If the article is accompanied by a compelling picture , I 'm even more likely to read it .
The news industry is gravely worried that ability for websites and our browsers to filter and deliver exactly the kind of information we are specifically interested in will negatively impact our society in the long run .
Sure , I can focus your reading to just the articles I like , but that 's the problem : I 'd rarely read alternative viewpoints or stumble across previously-unknown subjects .
It 's been a real pleasure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've owned a Kindle 2 for three weeks.
I subscribe to the NY Times on it.
Having it automatically delivered to the Kindle every morning is great!
I don't even need to get out of bed.
I spend about an hour each morning reading the articles.
I don't use the table of contents; I prefer to read linearly from front to back.
Doing so has certainly led me to read many more articles than I normally would have using something like Google News.
It's this kind of "serendipitous reading" that makes reading a magazine or newspaper so much more enjoyable than cherry-picking articles on a website.
If the article is accompanied by a compelling picture, I'm even more likely to read it.
The news industry is gravely worried that ability for websites and our browsers to filter and deliver exactly the kind of information we are specifically interested in will negatively impact our society in the long run.
Sure, I can focus your reading to just the articles I like, but that's the problem: I'd rarely read alternative viewpoints or stumble across previously-unknown subjects.
It's been a real pleasure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28410761</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28410483</id>
	<title>google news</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245597720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why not just wait until you get to the office and then browse the world's newspapers with google news?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not just wait until you get to the office and then browse the world 's newspapers with google news ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not just wait until you get to the office and then browse the world's newspapers with google news?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28410825</id>
	<title>Re:The real problem is marginal cost</title>
	<author>Norsefire</author>
	<datestamp>1245600480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Do you actually understand that almost all of a newspapers revenue is derived from advertising, not from paper sales? And apparently a lot of companies haven't got the memo that newspapers are dead because they still pay exorbitant prices for advertising spots on the front pages of small hick-town newspapers. And apparently a lot of people that subscribe to newspapers haven't got the memo because they still subscribe to it.<br> <br>

People who read websites like Slashdot will access information from the Internet, the majority of people still read newspapers.<br> <br>

I actually like the newspaper format better, it has a beginning and an end, I can it over breakfast. I'd have trouble even reading the new Slashdot summaries over breakfast, not to mention the articles.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you actually understand that almost all of a newspapers revenue is derived from advertising , not from paper sales ?
And apparently a lot of companies have n't got the memo that newspapers are dead because they still pay exorbitant prices for advertising spots on the front pages of small hick-town newspapers .
And apparently a lot of people that subscribe to newspapers have n't got the memo because they still subscribe to it .
People who read websites like Slashdot will access information from the Internet , the majority of people still read newspapers .
I actually like the newspaper format better , it has a beginning and an end , I can it over breakfast .
I 'd have trouble even reading the new Slashdot summaries over breakfast , not to mention the articles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you actually understand that almost all of a newspapers revenue is derived from advertising, not from paper sales?
And apparently a lot of companies haven't got the memo that newspapers are dead because they still pay exorbitant prices for advertising spots on the front pages of small hick-town newspapers.
And apparently a lot of people that subscribe to newspapers haven't got the memo because they still subscribe to it.
People who read websites like Slashdot will access information from the Internet, the majority of people still read newspapers.
I actually like the newspaper format better, it has a beginning and an end, I can it over breakfast.
I'd have trouble even reading the new Slashdot summaries over breakfast, not to mention the articles.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28410615</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28410615</id>
	<title>The real problem is marginal cost</title>
	<author>Geoffrey.landis</author>
	<datestamp>1245598620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The real problem with newspaper economics is that the cost of production is almost entirely fixed cost, and the marginal cost is very small.  That is, the main cost is in gathering the news and putting together the stories and laying up the first copy; once you've paid those fixed costs per issue, an additional issue costs very little.  Hence, the incremental cost of internet publication is almost nothing-- they've paid the fixed cost to gather the news already.  This means that competition drives newspapers to put their content on the internet for free: there's little cost reason not to (they've already paid the cost of producing the content), and they're competing against other newspapers, who can also put it on the internet for free, so there's no way they can keep the content valuable by restricting access.
<p>In the old "print" days of newspapers, this was not a problem-- there would be only a few newspapers in a town; and the customers were given the choice of buying a newspaper or not reading the news.  With the internet, though, newspapers are no longer local, so all the newspapers compete on the internet with each other, and there is no real bottom to the cost.
</p><p>The only real solution is for newspapers to continue to go out of business.  When this reaches the point where there are only a handful left, they might be able to start a model of restricting access to paid customers.  They're still competing against bloggers and crowdsourcing, of course, but the actual professional (which is to say, paid) reporter model of newsgathering may have advantages in the quality of news, sufficient that it may be worth it for some customers to pay for.
</p><p>(This is a general problem in free market theory, by the way, not specific to newspapers-- in a market with many small producers (rather than one or two large ones), when the marginal cost of production is close to zero, the equilibrium free market cost is zero, and thus everybody is driven out of business...)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The real problem with newspaper economics is that the cost of production is almost entirely fixed cost , and the marginal cost is very small .
That is , the main cost is in gathering the news and putting together the stories and laying up the first copy ; once you 've paid those fixed costs per issue , an additional issue costs very little .
Hence , the incremental cost of internet publication is almost nothing-- they 've paid the fixed cost to gather the news already .
This means that competition drives newspapers to put their content on the internet for free : there 's little cost reason not to ( they 've already paid the cost of producing the content ) , and they 're competing against other newspapers , who can also put it on the internet for free , so there 's no way they can keep the content valuable by restricting access .
In the old " print " days of newspapers , this was not a problem-- there would be only a few newspapers in a town ; and the customers were given the choice of buying a newspaper or not reading the news .
With the internet , though , newspapers are no longer local , so all the newspapers compete on the internet with each other , and there is no real bottom to the cost .
The only real solution is for newspapers to continue to go out of business .
When this reaches the point where there are only a handful left , they might be able to start a model of restricting access to paid customers .
They 're still competing against bloggers and crowdsourcing , of course , but the actual professional ( which is to say , paid ) reporter model of newsgathering may have advantages in the quality of news , sufficient that it may be worth it for some customers to pay for .
( This is a general problem in free market theory , by the way , not specific to newspapers-- in a market with many small producers ( rather than one or two large ones ) , when the marginal cost of production is close to zero , the equilibrium free market cost is zero , and thus everybody is driven out of business... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real problem with newspaper economics is that the cost of production is almost entirely fixed cost, and the marginal cost is very small.
That is, the main cost is in gathering the news and putting together the stories and laying up the first copy; once you've paid those fixed costs per issue, an additional issue costs very little.
Hence, the incremental cost of internet publication is almost nothing-- they've paid the fixed cost to gather the news already.
This means that competition drives newspapers to put their content on the internet for free: there's little cost reason not to (they've already paid the cost of producing the content), and they're competing against other newspapers, who can also put it on the internet for free, so there's no way they can keep the content valuable by restricting access.
In the old "print" days of newspapers, this was not a problem-- there would be only a few newspapers in a town; and the customers were given the choice of buying a newspaper or not reading the news.
With the internet, though, newspapers are no longer local, so all the newspapers compete on the internet with each other, and there is no real bottom to the cost.
The only real solution is for newspapers to continue to go out of business.
When this reaches the point where there are only a handful left, they might be able to start a model of restricting access to paid customers.
They're still competing against bloggers and crowdsourcing, of course, but the actual professional (which is to say, paid) reporter model of newsgathering may have advantages in the quality of news, sufficient that it may be worth it for some customers to pay for.
(This is a general problem in free market theory, by the way, not specific to newspapers-- in a market with many small producers (rather than one or two large ones), when the marginal cost of production is close to zero, the equilibrium free market cost is zero, and thus everybody is driven out of business...)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28410801</id>
	<title>Wait what?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245600300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So the issue is that the reader has to choose which news are most important to him?<br>Seriously?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So the issue is that the reader has to choose which news are most important to him ? Seriously ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the issue is that the reader has to choose which news are most important to him?Seriously?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28412849</id>
	<title>Thankfully news'paper's don't have DRM</title>
	<author>Lime Green Bowler</author>
	<datestamp>1245616440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I read the Kindle DRM article the other day and that further cemented my opinion against it. The guy should return his Kindle. The Kindle is all about making money for Jeffy B., not revolutionizing the printed word for people.<br> <br>
<a href="http://www.geardiary.com/2009/06/19/kindles-drm-rears-its-ugly-head-and-it-is-ugly/" title="geardiary.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.geardiary.com/2009/06/19/kindles-drm-rears-its-ugly-head-and-it-is-ugly/</a> [geardiary.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I read the Kindle DRM article the other day and that further cemented my opinion against it .
The guy should return his Kindle .
The Kindle is all about making money for Jeffy B. , not revolutionizing the printed word for people .
http : //www.geardiary.com/2009/06/19/kindles-drm-rears-its-ugly-head-and-it-is-ugly/ [ geardiary.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read the Kindle DRM article the other day and that further cemented my opinion against it.
The guy should return his Kindle.
The Kindle is all about making money for Jeffy B., not revolutionizing the printed word for people.
http://www.geardiary.com/2009/06/19/kindles-drm-rears-its-ugly-head-and-it-is-ugly/ [geardiary.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28411217</id>
	<title>Re:Newspapers on the Kindle</title>
	<author>Bigjeff5</author>
	<datestamp>1245603660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There are no ads, classified, comics, crosswords, sudokus, or horoscopes.</p></div><p>Seriously? I would think leaving those out would be a huge mistake, except for maybe crosswords and sudokus, those would be hard - but maybe worth it in the end.</p><p>No wonder they don't like these new distribution models, they're not pushing their advertising to them!  Just throw them up for free until you work out a new pricing model or whatever (shouldn't really change though).  People love the classifieds and comics, and classifieds and ads are how the newspapers make money.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are no ads , classified , comics , crosswords , sudokus , or horoscopes.Seriously ?
I would think leaving those out would be a huge mistake , except for maybe crosswords and sudokus , those would be hard - but maybe worth it in the end.No wonder they do n't like these new distribution models , they 're not pushing their advertising to them !
Just throw them up for free until you work out a new pricing model or whatever ( should n't really change though ) .
People love the classifieds and comics , and classifieds and ads are how the newspapers make money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are no ads, classified, comics, crosswords, sudokus, or horoscopes.Seriously?
I would think leaving those out would be a huge mistake, except for maybe crosswords and sudokus, those would be hard - but maybe worth it in the end.No wonder they don't like these new distribution models, they're not pushing their advertising to them!
Just throw them up for free until you work out a new pricing model or whatever (shouldn't really change though).
People love the classifieds and comics, and classifieds and ads are how the newspapers make money.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28410761</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28422641</id>
	<title>Break-even in about a year</title>
	<author>bsandersen</author>
	<datestamp>1245687060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Debates over the "feel of paper" or "convenience of electronic delivery" aside, and assuming you could live with either, the economics are interesting. If you're committed to getting the paper, even the very expensive Kindle DX pays for itself in about a year (plus or minus). The difference, of course, is the paper delivery bleeds you a little week-by-week so you don't notice it. The Kindle DX is a big purchase outlay of nearly $500 to get started. But, again, after about a year things are close to break-even, depending on your usage. (Note this assumes home delivery prices won't go up!)
</p><p>
Here are the numbers for delivery in my area:
</p><p>
New York Times Home Delivery (paper)<br>
14.80 (per week) Daily (769.60 yearly)<br>
10.40 (per week) "Weekender" Fri-Sun (540.80 yearly)<br>
7.50 (per week) Sunday only (390.00 yearly)<br>
7.40 (per week) Weekdays Mon-Fri (384.80 yearly)<br>
<br>
Kindle Daily Edition $13.99/mo (167.88 yearly)<br>
Year of NYT + 489.00 Kindle DX = $656.88 (vs $769.60 for paper)<br>
<br>
Sunday single issue NYT ($0.75/wk) $39<br>
Year of Sunday NYT + 489.00 Kindle DX = $528 (vs $390 for paper)<br>
Two years of Sunday NYT + Kindle DX = $567 (vs $780 for paper)<br>
<br>
Boston Globe Home Delivery (paper)<br>
9.00 (per week) Daily (468.00 yearly)<br>
<br>
9.99 (per month) Boston Globe Kindle Edition ($119.88 yearly)<br>
Year of the Globe + 468.00 Kindle DX = $608.88 (vs $468.00 for paper)<br>
Two years of the Globe + Kindle DX = $728.76 (vs $936.00 for paper)</p><p>
The funny thing is the Boston Globe probably loses money on the $9.00/week paper subscription but makes good profits on the 33-cents
per day Kindle edition. If true, electronic delivery of the paper might be the only thing that could save it. Imagine that...
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Debates over the " feel of paper " or " convenience of electronic delivery " aside , and assuming you could live with either , the economics are interesting .
If you 're committed to getting the paper , even the very expensive Kindle DX pays for itself in about a year ( plus or minus ) .
The difference , of course , is the paper delivery bleeds you a little week-by-week so you do n't notice it .
The Kindle DX is a big purchase outlay of nearly $ 500 to get started .
But , again , after about a year things are close to break-even , depending on your usage .
( Note this assumes home delivery prices wo n't go up !
) Here are the numbers for delivery in my area : New York Times Home Delivery ( paper ) 14.80 ( per week ) Daily ( 769.60 yearly ) 10.40 ( per week ) " Weekender " Fri-Sun ( 540.80 yearly ) 7.50 ( per week ) Sunday only ( 390.00 yearly ) 7.40 ( per week ) Weekdays Mon-Fri ( 384.80 yearly ) Kindle Daily Edition $ 13.99/mo ( 167.88 yearly ) Year of NYT + 489.00 Kindle DX = $ 656.88 ( vs $ 769.60 for paper ) Sunday single issue NYT ( $ 0.75/wk ) $ 39 Year of Sunday NYT + 489.00 Kindle DX = $ 528 ( vs $ 390 for paper ) Two years of Sunday NYT + Kindle DX = $ 567 ( vs $ 780 for paper ) Boston Globe Home Delivery ( paper ) 9.00 ( per week ) Daily ( 468.00 yearly ) 9.99 ( per month ) Boston Globe Kindle Edition ( $ 119.88 yearly ) Year of the Globe + 468.00 Kindle DX = $ 608.88 ( vs $ 468.00 for paper ) Two years of the Globe + Kindle DX = $ 728.76 ( vs $ 936.00 for paper ) The funny thing is the Boston Globe probably loses money on the $ 9.00/week paper subscription but makes good profits on the 33-cents per day Kindle edition .
If true , electronic delivery of the paper might be the only thing that could save it .
Imagine that.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Debates over the "feel of paper" or "convenience of electronic delivery" aside, and assuming you could live with either, the economics are interesting.
If you're committed to getting the paper, even the very expensive Kindle DX pays for itself in about a year (plus or minus).
The difference, of course, is the paper delivery bleeds you a little week-by-week so you don't notice it.
The Kindle DX is a big purchase outlay of nearly $500 to get started.
But, again, after about a year things are close to break-even, depending on your usage.
(Note this assumes home delivery prices won't go up!
)

Here are the numbers for delivery in my area:

New York Times Home Delivery (paper)
14.80 (per week) Daily (769.60 yearly)
10.40 (per week) "Weekender" Fri-Sun (540.80 yearly)
7.50 (per week) Sunday only (390.00 yearly)
7.40 (per week) Weekdays Mon-Fri (384.80 yearly)

Kindle Daily Edition $13.99/mo (167.88 yearly)
Year of NYT + 489.00 Kindle DX = $656.88 (vs $769.60 for paper)

Sunday single issue NYT ($0.75/wk) $39
Year of Sunday NYT + 489.00 Kindle DX = $528 (vs $390 for paper)
Two years of Sunday NYT + Kindle DX = $567 (vs $780 for paper)

Boston Globe Home Delivery (paper)
9.00 (per week) Daily (468.00 yearly)

9.99 (per month) Boston Globe Kindle Edition ($119.88 yearly)
Year of the Globe + 468.00 Kindle DX = $608.88 (vs $468.00 for paper)
Two years of the Globe + Kindle DX = $728.76 (vs $936.00 for paper)
The funny thing is the Boston Globe probably loses money on the $9.00/week paper subscription but makes good profits on the 33-cents
per day Kindle edition.
If true, electronic delivery of the paper might be the only thing that could save it.
Imagine that...
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28410553</id>
	<title>I find the paper much more cost-effective</title>
	<author>localroger</author>
	<datestamp>1245598140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Lining my parrot's cage with Kindles would get expensive.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lining my parrot 's cage with Kindles would get expensive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lining my parrot's cage with Kindles would get expensive.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28411411</id>
	<title>The absence of layout</title>
	<author>vorlich</author>
	<datestamp>1245605640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>means that the reader won't be able to fully appreciate the print experience that is The Sun (Soaraway) or the National Enquirer to name but two beacons of modern journalism.</htmltext>
<tokenext>means that the reader wo n't be able to fully appreciate the print experience that is The Sun ( Soaraway ) or the National Enquirer to name but two beacons of modern journalism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>means that the reader won't be able to fully appreciate the print experience that is The Sun (Soaraway) or the National Enquirer to name but two beacons of modern journalism.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28411289</id>
	<title>Feh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245604440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This whole discussion suggests two dimensional thinking.  Newspapers???</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This whole discussion suggests two dimensional thinking .
Newspapers ? ? ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This whole discussion suggests two dimensional thinking.
Newspapers???</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28411915</id>
	<title>Jacek Utko - can design save newspapers?</title>
	<author>Slur</author>
	<datestamp>1245609360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This seems to be working:</p><p><a href="http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/jacek\_utko\_asks\_can\_design\_save\_the\_newspaper.html" title="ted.com">http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/jacek\_utko\_asks\_can\_design\_save\_the\_newspaper.html</a> [ted.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This seems to be working : http : //www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/jacek \ _utko \ _asks \ _can \ _design \ _save \ _the \ _newspaper.html [ ted.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This seems to be working:http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/jacek\_utko\_asks\_can\_design\_save\_the\_newspaper.html [ted.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28410647</id>
	<title>What a concept</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245598860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>"The Kindle presents news as a list, leaving a reader to guess which pieces are most important to read."

Leaving the read to guess or leaving the reader to decide which article is more important?  Part of the reason newspapers are in trouble is because they tell they reader what they think is important.

Anyway, it's still a list of articles by section.  Just put the "important" ones at the top, so us morons will know what's important.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" The Kindle presents news as a list , leaving a reader to guess which pieces are most important to read .
" Leaving the read to guess or leaving the reader to decide which article is more important ?
Part of the reason newspapers are in trouble is because they tell they reader what they think is important .
Anyway , it 's still a list of articles by section .
Just put the " important " ones at the top , so us morons will know what 's important .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The Kindle presents news as a list, leaving a reader to guess which pieces are most important to read.
"

Leaving the read to guess or leaving the reader to decide which article is more important?
Part of the reason newspapers are in trouble is because they tell they reader what they think is important.
Anyway, it's still a list of articles by section.
Just put the "important" ones at the top, so us morons will know what's important.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28411869</id>
	<title>Newspapers have more to worry about than kindle</title>
	<author>nausea\_malvarma</author>
	<datestamp>1245609000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>So just because the kindle does a shitty job of delivering news, everyone assumes newspapers still have life in them? Who cares. Most people already get their news online, with or without the kindle. The newspaper business will stick around, for sure, but the age of big newspaper profits are slowly dying. Just a matter of time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So just because the kindle does a shitty job of delivering news , everyone assumes newspapers still have life in them ?
Who cares .
Most people already get their news online , with or without the kindle .
The newspaper business will stick around , for sure , but the age of big newspaper profits are slowly dying .
Just a matter of time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So just because the kindle does a shitty job of delivering news, everyone assumes newspapers still have life in them?
Who cares.
Most people already get their news online, with or without the kindle.
The newspaper business will stick around, for sure, but the age of big newspaper profits are slowly dying.
Just a matter of time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28415557</id>
	<title>Plea to consider the consequences</title>
	<author>ctmurray</author>
	<datestamp>1245597000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is a reason the press is considered the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth\_Estate" title="wikipedia.org">fourth estate </a> [wikipedia.org]. They serve a role in our society that bloggers and news consolidators do not yet fulfill. Think of the various investigative reports and whistleblower services each good local paper provides. These checks on the system only work when the published report is widely read and available (to be picked up by TV and national media), which is not the case for electronic systems. I think no electronic location has mindshare enough, and generates enough cash to support the staff for this function. In my area all the best reporters have been laid off during the recession and are showing up on a good blog <a href="http://www.minnpost.com/" title="minnpost.com"> MinnPost</a> [minnpost.com]. But they can't find a business model or audience (although you can donate to them to help as I have done). But very few of the readers of the papers know that MinnPost exists, it took me quite a bit of time myself. My plea is to consider what happens along these lines when the audience is fragmented to many many blogs with a niche perspective or audience. As an example, Michelle Bachman is my congresswoman and without the papers her silliness would go unnoticed - ironically I am going to link a <a href="http://dumpbachmann.blogspot.com/blog" title="blogspot.com">blog</a> [blogspot.com] so you can see what I mean, but these all came out in the papers for the entire district to see. The press may be the only think keeping her from the deep end.<br> <br>

BTW the largest electronic readership web site is that of the <a href="http://www.startribune.com/" title="startribune.com">paper</a> [startribune.com], but without the print edition I am not sure the online edition would survive long.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a reason the press is considered the fourth estate [ wikipedia.org ] .
They serve a role in our society that bloggers and news consolidators do not yet fulfill .
Think of the various investigative reports and whistleblower services each good local paper provides .
These checks on the system only work when the published report is widely read and available ( to be picked up by TV and national media ) , which is not the case for electronic systems .
I think no electronic location has mindshare enough , and generates enough cash to support the staff for this function .
In my area all the best reporters have been laid off during the recession and are showing up on a good blog MinnPost [ minnpost.com ] .
But they ca n't find a business model or audience ( although you can donate to them to help as I have done ) .
But very few of the readers of the papers know that MinnPost exists , it took me quite a bit of time myself .
My plea is to consider what happens along these lines when the audience is fragmented to many many blogs with a niche perspective or audience .
As an example , Michelle Bachman is my congresswoman and without the papers her silliness would go unnoticed - ironically I am going to link a blog [ blogspot.com ] so you can see what I mean , but these all came out in the papers for the entire district to see .
The press may be the only think keeping her from the deep end .
BTW the largest electronic readership web site is that of the paper [ startribune.com ] , but without the print edition I am not sure the online edition would survive long .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a reason the press is considered the fourth estate  [wikipedia.org].
They serve a role in our society that bloggers and news consolidators do not yet fulfill.
Think of the various investigative reports and whistleblower services each good local paper provides.
These checks on the system only work when the published report is widely read and available (to be picked up by TV and national media), which is not the case for electronic systems.
I think no electronic location has mindshare enough, and generates enough cash to support the staff for this function.
In my area all the best reporters have been laid off during the recession and are showing up on a good blog  MinnPost [minnpost.com].
But they can't find a business model or audience (although you can donate to them to help as I have done).
But very few of the readers of the papers know that MinnPost exists, it took me quite a bit of time myself.
My plea is to consider what happens along these lines when the audience is fragmented to many many blogs with a niche perspective or audience.
As an example, Michelle Bachman is my congresswoman and without the papers her silliness would go unnoticed - ironically I am going to link a blog [blogspot.com] so you can see what I mean, but these all came out in the papers for the entire district to see.
The press may be the only think keeping her from the deep end.
BTW the largest electronic readership web site is that of the paper [startribune.com], but without the print edition I am not sure the online edition would survive long.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28410615</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28425405</id>
	<title>Sounds like an improvement to me.</title>
	<author>danielpauldavis</author>
	<datestamp>1245696480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't need an editor to "tell" me what news is important to me. Sheesh, does anyone remember the New York Times burying the article on the Nazi death camps on page 8? The front page is not the most important news, ever. It is the most sellable news, which by definition is almost always the least important.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't need an editor to " tell " me what news is important to me .
Sheesh , does anyone remember the New York Times burying the article on the Nazi death camps on page 8 ?
The front page is not the most important news , ever .
It is the most sellable news , which by definition is almost always the least important .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't need an editor to "tell" me what news is important to me.
Sheesh, does anyone remember the New York Times burying the article on the Nazi death camps on page 8?
The front page is not the most important news, ever.
It is the most sellable news, which by definition is almost always the least important.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28410539</id>
	<title>"leaving a reader to guess..."</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245598140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> "leaving a reader to guess which pieces are most important to read."</p><p>Yeah, I hate that. Much better if the editor tells us what is important. Like, it's not as if I'll have a different opinion or anything.</p><p>News, schmooze. It's all the same at the end fo the day isn't it. Man bites dog; Judge in gay love nest horror plot; prime minister justifies war with humongous lie blah blah.  I really need the editor to let me know what is important.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" leaving a reader to guess which pieces are most important to read .
" Yeah , I hate that .
Much better if the editor tells us what is important .
Like , it 's not as if I 'll have a different opinion or anything.News , schmooze .
It 's all the same at the end fo the day is n't it .
Man bites dog ; Judge in gay love nest horror plot ; prime minister justifies war with humongous lie blah blah .
I really need the editor to let me know what is important .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> "leaving a reader to guess which pieces are most important to read.
"Yeah, I hate that.
Much better if the editor tells us what is important.
Like, it's not as if I'll have a different opinion or anything.News, schmooze.
It's all the same at the end fo the day isn't it.
Man bites dog; Judge in gay love nest horror plot; prime minister justifies war with humongous lie blah blah.
I really need the editor to let me know what is important.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28411485</id>
	<title>Re:I find the paper much more cost-effective</title>
	<author>KarlIsNotMyName</author>
	<datestamp>1245606360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So was I the only one thinking "Would Kindles make a parrot able to tell me the news"?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So was I the only one thinking " Would Kindles make a parrot able to tell me the news " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So was I the only one thinking "Would Kindles make a parrot able to tell me the news"?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28410553</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28411083</id>
	<title>It's...</title>
	<author>MickyTheIdiot</author>
	<datestamp>1245602460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's just <i>pineing</i> for the fjords!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's just pineing for the fjords !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's just pineing for the fjords!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28410761</id>
	<title>Newspapers on the Kindle</title>
	<author>Brandee07</author>
	<datestamp>1245599820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some information for informed discussion:
</p><p>I rather like my newspaper on the Kindle, just for the fact of the small size and not having to crawl under the car to retrieve the paper. In addition, articles are in one piece, not continued on page A28. The articles are not abridged. The rest comes down to the individual paper and their publishing habits, and how much effort they're putting into the Kindle edition.
</p><p>I get the Washington Post on my Kindle. It never has more than one picture per article, and sometimes when there are multiple pictures in the print edition, the wrong caption is attached to the picture in the Kindle edition. There are no ads, classified, comics, crosswords, sudokus, or horoscopes. All of the local sections and once-a-week sections are included. It is delivered every morning while I stand on the metro platform. The download takes about 30 seconds. Make sure to get it on the platform- Sprint doesn't have towers in the tunnels in DC.
</p><p>There are separate sections for "The Front Page" "Politics &amp; Nation" "World" and "The Fed Page," which I believe (not sure) are all rolled into the A section in the print edition.
</p><p>You can clip a whole article with two clicks, which copies the whole article into a text file that can later be moved to a computer.
</p><p>Periodicals are automatically deleted when they are more than seven issues old. You can flag any particular issue to be saved, and it will not delete it, although once seven issues have passed (a week for newspapers, seven months for magazines), you will no longer be able to re-download that issue from Amazon, although if you have stored it on your computer, you can always re-load it by USB. This is a demand on the newspapers part, as they make good money selling back articles. It's also largely moot, as most people throw away their newspaper when they're done reading it anyways.
</p><p>The Kindle newspapers are no less timely than print newspapers, as they ARE the print paper in content. For breaking news, there's the NYTimes Breaking News Blog, which I don't subscribe to, and Google News open on my browser during the day at work.
</p><p>The Washington Post has made huge leaps over the past year and a half on their Kindle edition. Every couple months I notice something in the layout has changed, and always for the better. When they made that big deal about the Business section being rolled into the A section, it has remained separate for Kindle users- the change was made to save on printing costs, after all.
</p><p>I read my news on the Kindle 2. The Kindle 1 has a different set of behaviors (never automatically deleted old newspapers, leading to memory filling up, no joystick for easy navigation). The DX is just a Kindle 2 with a larger screen and (reportedly poor) native PDF support, so newspapers should not be any different than on the K2.
</p><p>It's REALLY EASY to go get a single issue of a different paper, if you want one that day. Today I want to read the LA Times and see what's happening in my parent's area? It's kinda hard to find newsstands selling the LA times in DC, but I can do it easily on the Kindle.
</p><p>No periodical that I know of has TTS disabled, although it's a terrible idea. The TTS software is terrible with proper names.
</p><p>
The main issue with newspapers on the Kindle stems from- what else?- DRM. A normal book purchase for a Kindle is available on all devices associated with that account (up to 6). A periodical subscription is tied to one device only. That means if you have His and Her Kindles, then you'll need two subscriptions for both devices to get the same paper. Also, this means that if you are backing up back issues on your computer and your Kindle breaks and is replaced, you will lose access to those back issues, unless you break the DRM. Switching which Kindle a periodical is assigned to is easy, but if you change your settings twice a day every day, you are likely to attract attention. Periodicals can only be assigned to Kindles, not to iPhones/iPod touches, although iPhones have their own methods of newspaper-getting.
</p><p>Anyone have any questions about the actual implementation of Kindle newspapers? Nothing like actual facts to base a discussion off of!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some information for informed discussion : I rather like my newspaper on the Kindle , just for the fact of the small size and not having to crawl under the car to retrieve the paper .
In addition , articles are in one piece , not continued on page A28 .
The articles are not abridged .
The rest comes down to the individual paper and their publishing habits , and how much effort they 're putting into the Kindle edition .
I get the Washington Post on my Kindle .
It never has more than one picture per article , and sometimes when there are multiple pictures in the print edition , the wrong caption is attached to the picture in the Kindle edition .
There are no ads , classified , comics , crosswords , sudokus , or horoscopes .
All of the local sections and once-a-week sections are included .
It is delivered every morning while I stand on the metro platform .
The download takes about 30 seconds .
Make sure to get it on the platform- Sprint does n't have towers in the tunnels in DC .
There are separate sections for " The Front Page " " Politics &amp; Nation " " World " and " The Fed Page , " which I believe ( not sure ) are all rolled into the A section in the print edition .
You can clip a whole article with two clicks , which copies the whole article into a text file that can later be moved to a computer .
Periodicals are automatically deleted when they are more than seven issues old .
You can flag any particular issue to be saved , and it will not delete it , although once seven issues have passed ( a week for newspapers , seven months for magazines ) , you will no longer be able to re-download that issue from Amazon , although if you have stored it on your computer , you can always re-load it by USB .
This is a demand on the newspapers part , as they make good money selling back articles .
It 's also largely moot , as most people throw away their newspaper when they 're done reading it anyways .
The Kindle newspapers are no less timely than print newspapers , as they ARE the print paper in content .
For breaking news , there 's the NYTimes Breaking News Blog , which I do n't subscribe to , and Google News open on my browser during the day at work .
The Washington Post has made huge leaps over the past year and a half on their Kindle edition .
Every couple months I notice something in the layout has changed , and always for the better .
When they made that big deal about the Business section being rolled into the A section , it has remained separate for Kindle users- the change was made to save on printing costs , after all .
I read my news on the Kindle 2 .
The Kindle 1 has a different set of behaviors ( never automatically deleted old newspapers , leading to memory filling up , no joystick for easy navigation ) .
The DX is just a Kindle 2 with a larger screen and ( reportedly poor ) native PDF support , so newspapers should not be any different than on the K2 .
It 's REALLY EASY to go get a single issue of a different paper , if you want one that day .
Today I want to read the LA Times and see what 's happening in my parent 's area ?
It 's kinda hard to find newsstands selling the LA times in DC , but I can do it easily on the Kindle .
No periodical that I know of has TTS disabled , although it 's a terrible idea .
The TTS software is terrible with proper names .
The main issue with newspapers on the Kindle stems from- what else ? - DRM .
A normal book purchase for a Kindle is available on all devices associated with that account ( up to 6 ) .
A periodical subscription is tied to one device only .
That means if you have His and Her Kindles , then you 'll need two subscriptions for both devices to get the same paper .
Also , this means that if you are backing up back issues on your computer and your Kindle breaks and is replaced , you will lose access to those back issues , unless you break the DRM .
Switching which Kindle a periodical is assigned to is easy , but if you change your settings twice a day every day , you are likely to attract attention .
Periodicals can only be assigned to Kindles , not to iPhones/iPod touches , although iPhones have their own methods of newspaper-getting .
Anyone have any questions about the actual implementation of Kindle newspapers ?
Nothing like actual facts to base a discussion off of !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some information for informed discussion:
I rather like my newspaper on the Kindle, just for the fact of the small size and not having to crawl under the car to retrieve the paper.
In addition, articles are in one piece, not continued on page A28.
The articles are not abridged.
The rest comes down to the individual paper and their publishing habits, and how much effort they're putting into the Kindle edition.
I get the Washington Post on my Kindle.
It never has more than one picture per article, and sometimes when there are multiple pictures in the print edition, the wrong caption is attached to the picture in the Kindle edition.
There are no ads, classified, comics, crosswords, sudokus, or horoscopes.
All of the local sections and once-a-week sections are included.
It is delivered every morning while I stand on the metro platform.
The download takes about 30 seconds.
Make sure to get it on the platform- Sprint doesn't have towers in the tunnels in DC.
There are separate sections for "The Front Page" "Politics &amp; Nation" "World" and "The Fed Page," which I believe (not sure) are all rolled into the A section in the print edition.
You can clip a whole article with two clicks, which copies the whole article into a text file that can later be moved to a computer.
Periodicals are automatically deleted when they are more than seven issues old.
You can flag any particular issue to be saved, and it will not delete it, although once seven issues have passed (a week for newspapers, seven months for magazines), you will no longer be able to re-download that issue from Amazon, although if you have stored it on your computer, you can always re-load it by USB.
This is a demand on the newspapers part, as they make good money selling back articles.
It's also largely moot, as most people throw away their newspaper when they're done reading it anyways.
The Kindle newspapers are no less timely than print newspapers, as they ARE the print paper in content.
For breaking news, there's the NYTimes Breaking News Blog, which I don't subscribe to, and Google News open on my browser during the day at work.
The Washington Post has made huge leaps over the past year and a half on their Kindle edition.
Every couple months I notice something in the layout has changed, and always for the better.
When they made that big deal about the Business section being rolled into the A section, it has remained separate for Kindle users- the change was made to save on printing costs, after all.
I read my news on the Kindle 2.
The Kindle 1 has a different set of behaviors (never automatically deleted old newspapers, leading to memory filling up, no joystick for easy navigation).
The DX is just a Kindle 2 with a larger screen and (reportedly poor) native PDF support, so newspapers should not be any different than on the K2.
It's REALLY EASY to go get a single issue of a different paper, if you want one that day.
Today I want to read the LA Times and see what's happening in my parent's area?
It's kinda hard to find newsstands selling the LA times in DC, but I can do it easily on the Kindle.
No periodical that I know of has TTS disabled, although it's a terrible idea.
The TTS software is terrible with proper names.
The main issue with newspapers on the Kindle stems from- what else?- DRM.
A normal book purchase for a Kindle is available on all devices associated with that account (up to 6).
A periodical subscription is tied to one device only.
That means if you have His and Her Kindles, then you'll need two subscriptions for both devices to get the same paper.
Also, this means that if you are backing up back issues on your computer and your Kindle breaks and is replaced, you will lose access to those back issues, unless you break the DRM.
Switching which Kindle a periodical is assigned to is easy, but if you change your settings twice a day every day, you are likely to attract attention.
Periodicals can only be assigned to Kindles, not to iPhones/iPod touches, although iPhones have their own methods of newspaper-getting.
Anyone have any questions about the actual implementation of Kindle newspapers?
Nothing like actual facts to base a discussion off of!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28410505</id>
	<title>I like new spapers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245597900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They tell me what is for nbrekafast and lonch and they are bad fr teh crimunals who smok pote! I lrned to write usihg thge newspapers and poo pn my toiled seat wit smelly brown poo jb in th water!!!!!!!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They tell me what is for nbrekafast and lonch and they are bad fr teh crimunals who smok pote !
I lrned to write usihg thge newspapers and poo pn my toiled seat wit smelly brown poo jb in th water ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They tell me what is for nbrekafast and lonch and they are bad fr teh crimunals who smok pote!
I lrned to write usihg thge newspapers and poo pn my toiled seat wit smelly brown poo jb in th water!!!!!!!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28414785</id>
	<title>Re:I find the paper much more cost-effective</title>
	<author>rwyoder</author>
	<datestamp>1245589260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Lining my parrot's cage with Kindles would get expensive.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Well, since you brought it up...
I must argue the newspaper isn't dead, it's just resting.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lining my parrot 's cage with Kindles would get expensive .
Well , since you brought it up.. . I must argue the newspaper is n't dead , it 's just resting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lining my parrot's cage with Kindles would get expensive.
Well, since you brought it up...
I must argue the newspaper isn't dead, it's just resting.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28410553</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28414011</id>
	<title>Re:The real problem is marginal cost</title>
	<author>Guillaume Castel</author>
	<datestamp>1245582360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At The San Francisco Chronicle, for example, print and delivery amount to 65 percent of the paper's fixed expenses, Bronfin said.<br> <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/08/technology/08iht-paper.2.15974846.html" title="nytimes.com" rel="nofollow">Electronic newspaper reader has look of the real thing</a> [nytimes.com] (New York Times)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At The San Francisco Chronicle , for example , print and delivery amount to 65 percent of the paper 's fixed expenses , Bronfin said .
Electronic newspaper reader has look of the real thing [ nytimes.com ] ( New York Times )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At The San Francisco Chronicle, for example, print and delivery amount to 65 percent of the paper's fixed expenses, Bronfin said.
Electronic newspaper reader has look of the real thing [nytimes.com] (New York Times)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28410615</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28410537</id>
	<title>Re:google news</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245598140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>because the suits, the manager and the company proxy do not like it<br>i live in a part of the world where i get THREE FREE newspapers distributed at the subway/metro<br>and i enjoy reading slashdot on my new HTC Magic Android phone ^\_^</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>because the suits , the manager and the company proxy do not like iti live in a part of the world where i get THREE FREE newspapers distributed at the subway/metroand i enjoy reading slashdot on my new HTC Magic Android phone ^ \ _ ^</tokentext>
<sentencetext>because the suits, the manager and the company proxy do not like iti live in a part of the world where i get THREE FREE newspapers distributed at the subway/metroand i enjoy reading slashdot on my new HTC Magic Android phone ^\_^</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28410483</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28411031</id>
	<title>Re:Newspapers on the Kindle</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245602100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Would rather read news on good old-fashioned newspaper, because I would rather not bring my Kindle to the toilet for fear that Amazon would find out and would not allow me to return it anymore.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would rather read news on good old-fashioned newspaper , because I would rather not bring my Kindle to the toilet for fear that Amazon would find out and would not allow me to return it anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would rather read news on good old-fashioned newspaper, because I would rather not bring my Kindle to the toilet for fear that Amazon would find out and would not allow me to return it anymore.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28410761</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28421333</id>
	<title>Re:Gate Keepers eh? That reminds me:</title>
	<author>Trent Hawkins</author>
	<datestamp>1245682860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Speaking of the Gate Keeper, that reminds me of an insightful quote:<br>
<b>Print is dead.</b> <br>
<i>-Dr. Egon Spengler 1984</i></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Speaking of the Gate Keeper , that reminds me of an insightful quote : Print is dead .
-Dr. Egon Spengler 1984</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Speaking of the Gate Keeper, that reminds me of an insightful quote:
Print is dead.
-Dr. Egon Spengler 1984
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28410463</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28410923</id>
	<title>Sociological, not technical.</title>
	<author>mevets</author>
	<datestamp>1245601140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At a certain distance Slashdot shares many important characteristics of a newspaper.   There is the equivalent of an editorial board that prioritizes, categorizes and rejects various stories.   There is a shared experience with other readers, and there is feedback.</p><p>Certainly<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. is more feedback centred than a traditional newspaper, but if you browse at +5, not so much.</p><p>I look at google news to see what is going on; but I read the globe-and-mail and Toronto Star because I am interested in their perspective.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At a certain distance Slashdot shares many important characteristics of a newspaper .
There is the equivalent of an editorial board that prioritizes , categorizes and rejects various stories .
There is a shared experience with other readers , and there is feedback.Certainly / .
is more feedback centred than a traditional newspaper , but if you browse at + 5 , not so much.I look at google news to see what is going on ; but I read the globe-and-mail and Toronto Star because I am interested in their perspective .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At a certain distance Slashdot shares many important characteristics of a newspaper.
There is the equivalent of an editorial board that prioritizes, categorizes and rejects various stories.
There is a shared experience with other readers, and there is feedback.Certainly /.
is more feedback centred than a traditional newspaper, but if you browse at +5, not so much.I look at google news to see what is going on; but I read the globe-and-mail and Toronto Star because I am interested in their perspective.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28410761</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28414503</id>
	<title>Duh!</title>
	<author>bigwillystylie</author>
	<datestamp>1245586620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Until Netcraft confirms it I won't believe it either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Until Netcraft confirms it I wo n't believe it either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Until Netcraft confirms it I won't believe it either.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28412887</id>
	<title>Re:google news</title>
	<author>drsquare</author>
	<datestamp>1245616680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And what about the vast majority of the world's population who don't work at a computer?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And what about the vast majority of the world 's population who do n't work at a computer ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And what about the vast majority of the world's population who don't work at a computer?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28410483</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28411375</id>
	<title>Re:Newspapers on the Kindle</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245605160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd be sold, except<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... I do most of my reading overseas, and it won't work for me overseas. Yes, the military is anti-thumb drive and wireless access on base sucks. If it were GSM instead of sprint, I'd be sold already. Maybe they'll have a GSM version which will work in the US too. (you know, bands and such). Same thing with airports. I don't want to pull out my laptop to update the kindle; that kind of negates half the point of the kindle. Maybe soon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd be sold , except ... I do most of my reading overseas , and it wo n't work for me overseas .
Yes , the military is anti-thumb drive and wireless access on base sucks .
If it were GSM instead of sprint , I 'd be sold already .
Maybe they 'll have a GSM version which will work in the US too .
( you know , bands and such ) .
Same thing with airports .
I do n't want to pull out my laptop to update the kindle ; that kind of negates half the point of the kindle .
Maybe soon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd be sold, except ... I do most of my reading overseas, and it won't work for me overseas.
Yes, the military is anti-thumb drive and wireless access on base sucks.
If it were GSM instead of sprint, I'd be sold already.
Maybe they'll have a GSM version which will work in the US too.
(you know, bands and such).
Same thing with airports.
I don't want to pull out my laptop to update the kindle; that kind of negates half the point of the kindle.
Maybe soon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28410761</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28410469</id>
	<title>Yes it is</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245597600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The newspaper is so dead, see? *points at the newspaper*</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The newspaper is so dead , see ?
* points at the newspaper *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The newspaper is so dead, see?
*points at the newspaper*</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28418413</id>
	<title>Advantages of newspapers</title>
	<author>jandersen</author>
	<datestamp>1245663360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are many advantages to buying an actual, printed newspaper. There is nothing like an old newspaper to light a fire or for polishing windows, and of course, you can take it with you to the loo and read it or use it when the loo-paper has run out; I challenge anybody to do that with their netbook or iPhone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are many advantages to buying an actual , printed newspaper .
There is nothing like an old newspaper to light a fire or for polishing windows , and of course , you can take it with you to the loo and read it or use it when the loo-paper has run out ; I challenge anybody to do that with their netbook or iPhone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are many advantages to buying an actual, printed newspaper.
There is nothing like an old newspaper to light a fire or for polishing windows, and of course, you can take it with you to the loo and read it or use it when the loo-paper has run out; I challenge anybody to do that with their netbook or iPhone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28410931</id>
	<title>Re:The real problem is marginal cost</title>
	<author>Jacques Chester</author>
	<datestamp>1245601200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most newspapers <em>lose</em> money on the cover price. The real money is in classifieds and advertising.</p><p>What is killing newspapers is not competitive sources of content, it is competitive ways to place <a href="http://clubtroppo.com.au/2009/06/02/whats-killing-the-newspaper-it-isnt-bloggers/" title="clubtroppo.com.au">classifieds and display advertising</a> [clubtroppo.com.au].</p><p>Disclaimer: I used to work for a small Newscorp newspaper in the classifieds department.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most newspapers lose money on the cover price .
The real money is in classifieds and advertising.What is killing newspapers is not competitive sources of content , it is competitive ways to place classifieds and display advertising [ clubtroppo.com.au ] .Disclaimer : I used to work for a small Newscorp newspaper in the classifieds department .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most newspapers lose money on the cover price.
The real money is in classifieds and advertising.What is killing newspapers is not competitive sources of content, it is competitive ways to place classifieds and display advertising [clubtroppo.com.au].Disclaimer: I used to work for a small Newscorp newspaper in the classifieds department.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28410615</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28411303</id>
	<title>Let's see...</title>
	<author>FlyingSquidStudios</author>
	<datestamp>1245604620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>L.A. times subscription- $156 a year.
Big-Size Kindle - $500.

Think I'll stick with the dead trees for now. By the time the Kindle has paid for itself, there will be a dozen newer, better, cheaper models.</htmltext>
<tokenext>L.A. times subscription- $ 156 a year .
Big-Size Kindle - $ 500 .
Think I 'll stick with the dead trees for now .
By the time the Kindle has paid for itself , there will be a dozen newer , better , cheaper models .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>L.A. times subscription- $156 a year.
Big-Size Kindle - $500.
Think I'll stick with the dead trees for now.
By the time the Kindle has paid for itself, there will be a dozen newer, better, cheaper models.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28410885</id>
	<title>Reader bias</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245600900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is going to turn into another one of those discussions where people who read Slashdot and other tech sites forget that they are amongst a minority of computer users and subsequently the consensus that is reached here won't reflect reality at all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is going to turn into another one of those discussions where people who read Slashdot and other tech sites forget that they are amongst a minority of computer users and subsequently the consensus that is reached here wo n't reflect reality at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is going to turn into another one of those discussions where people who read Slashdot and other tech sites forget that they are amongst a minority of computer users and subsequently the consensus that is reached here won't reflect reality at all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28411579</id>
	<title>Re:I find the paper much more cost-effective</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245607020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Meh, at least there's the chance the parrot could read you the news.  No such luck with the Kindle now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Meh , at least there 's the chance the parrot could read you the news .
No such luck with the Kindle now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Meh, at least there's the chance the parrot could read you the news.
No such luck with the Kindle now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28410553</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28410463</id>
	<title>But Cory said....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245597600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But didn't Cory Doctorow just tell us that these "gatekeepers" are just getting in everyone's way?!? Clearly this guy from Slate is just horribly misguided and doesn't understand the world around him.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But did n't Cory Doctorow just tell us that these " gatekeepers " are just getting in everyone 's way ? ! ?
Clearly this guy from Slate is just horribly misguided and does n't understand the world around him .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But didn't Cory Doctorow just tell us that these "gatekeepers" are just getting in everyone's way?!?
Clearly this guy from Slate is just horribly misguided and doesn't understand the world around him.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28414185</id>
	<title>Dead?</title>
	<author>spartacus\_prime</author>
	<datestamp>1245583800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's not dead, it's pining for the fjords.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not dead , it 's pining for the fjords .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not dead, it's pining for the fjords.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28411999</id>
	<title>Newspapers: I'm Not Dead Yet!</title>
	<author>gyrogeerloose</author>
	<datestamp>1245609900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Internet: You'll be stone dead in a minute.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Internet : You 'll be stone dead in a minute .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Internet: You'll be stone dead in a minute.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28410855</id>
	<title>It's not about the content, it's about the money.</title>
	<author>Jacques Chester</author>
	<datestamp>1245600720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As I have pointed out here and <a href="http://clubtroppo.com.au/2009/06/02/whats-killing-the-newspaper-it-isnt-bloggers/" title="clubtroppo.com.au">elsewhere</a> [clubtroppo.com.au], newspapers do not make their money from selling copies; they make it on classifieds and advertising.</p><p>All the stuff about bloggers being better than journalists, or journalists being better than bloggers, is a total sideshow. It's about money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As I have pointed out here and elsewhere [ clubtroppo.com.au ] , newspapers do not make their money from selling copies ; they make it on classifieds and advertising.All the stuff about bloggers being better than journalists , or journalists being better than bloggers , is a total sideshow .
It 's about money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As I have pointed out here and elsewhere [clubtroppo.com.au], newspapers do not make their money from selling copies; they make it on classifieds and advertising.All the stuff about bloggers being better than journalists, or journalists being better than bloggers, is a total sideshow.
It's about money.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28411535</id>
	<title>NRC Handelsblad on iRex illiad</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245606780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually there's a Dutch newspaper, NRC Handelsblad, that's released on the iRex illiad which has a very nice layout for the newspaper instead of the ugly lists we see on the Kindle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually there 's a Dutch newspaper , NRC Handelsblad , that 's released on the iRex illiad which has a very nice layout for the newspaper instead of the ugly lists we see on the Kindle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually there's a Dutch newspaper, NRC Handelsblad, that's released on the iRex illiad which has a very nice layout for the newspaper instead of the ugly lists we see on the Kindle.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28411247</id>
	<title>Sounds like Music</title>
	<author>PleaseFearMe</author>
	<datestamp>1245603900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Making copies of the song is very cheap; all the cost is in the production.  Problem with newspapers is that they can't copyright the news.  We "discovered" this "idea of what happened yesterday" first, so therefore, if you want to learn about it, you must buy our newspaper.  Capitalism<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(.  One possible life saver for most of the newspapers is the local news, ie the new sheriff in town.  But as people start living in the internet more, they may even stop caring about who the new sheriff is.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Making copies of the song is very cheap ; all the cost is in the production .
Problem with newspapers is that they ca n't copyright the news .
We " discovered " this " idea of what happened yesterday " first , so therefore , if you want to learn about it , you must buy our newspaper .
Capitalism : ( .
One possible life saver for most of the newspapers is the local news , ie the new sheriff in town .
But as people start living in the internet more , they may even stop caring about who the new sheriff is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Making copies of the song is very cheap; all the cost is in the production.
Problem with newspapers is that they can't copyright the news.
We "discovered" this "idea of what happened yesterday" first, so therefore, if you want to learn about it, you must buy our newspaper.
Capitalism :(.
One possible life saver for most of the newspapers is the local news, ie the new sheriff in town.
But as people start living in the internet more, they may even stop caring about who the new sheriff is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28410615</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28411393</id>
	<title>Medical alarm systems</title>
	<author>medicalalarm</author>
	<datestamp>1245605340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thanks for such a nice post.

Regards
Poan
<a href="http://alertsystem.blogpico.com/2009/06/16/medical-alarm-systems//" title="blogpico.com" rel="nofollow">Medical alert systems</a> [blogpico.com]
<a href="http://www.chaperonealert.com/" title="chaperonealert.com" rel="nofollow">Medical alarm systems</a> [chaperonealert.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks for such a nice post .
Regards Poan Medical alert systems [ blogpico.com ] Medical alarm systems [ chaperonealert.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks for such a nice post.
Regards
Poan
Medical alert systems [blogpico.com]
Medical alarm systems [chaperonealert.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28411345</id>
	<title>10 -v- 20,000...</title>
	<author>AnswerIs42</author>
	<datestamp>1245605040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can't see there being such a high density of Kindle's out there where they can replace 20,000/60,000/100,000+ readers.  And you get into some areas, you may probably be hard pressed to find ANY kindles.  You also have to look at it more than just one way.. many people *shock* do NOT have internet access (especially older people), maybe I don't care as much about global and national news, I see that on the TV.. but I DO want to know what happened locally, (We have two firefighters that were arrested for Arson.. I have only found 1 paragraph on Google News about it.. so there is a huge fail for the internet being a news source), coupons.. I clip out and save hundreds of dollars<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. I can't find those same coupons online, advertisement inserts.. I like to know what is on sale at the local grocery store BEFORE I get to the grocery store.
<p>
I am sorry, but the mindset of the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. reader only really works for a very small number of people.  Death of newspapers?  Only when everyone just plain stops reading, period.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't see there being such a high density of Kindle 's out there where they can replace 20,000/60,000/100,000 + readers .
And you get into some areas , you may probably be hard pressed to find ANY kindles .
You also have to look at it more than just one way.. many people * shock * do NOT have internet access ( especially older people ) , maybe I do n't care as much about global and national news , I see that on the TV.. but I DO want to know what happened locally , ( We have two firefighters that were arrested for Arson.. I have only found 1 paragraph on Google News about it.. so there is a huge fail for the internet being a news source ) , coupons.. I clip out and save hundreds of dollars .. I ca n't find those same coupons online , advertisement inserts.. I like to know what is on sale at the local grocery store BEFORE I get to the grocery store .
I am sorry , but the mindset of the / .
reader only really works for a very small number of people .
Death of newspapers ?
Only when everyone just plain stops reading , period .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't see there being such a high density of Kindle's out there where they can replace 20,000/60,000/100,000+ readers.
And you get into some areas, you may probably be hard pressed to find ANY kindles.
You also have to look at it more than just one way.. many people *shock* do NOT have internet access (especially older people), maybe I don't care as much about global and national news, I see that on the TV.. but I DO want to know what happened locally, (We have two firefighters that were arrested for Arson.. I have only found 1 paragraph on Google News about it.. so there is a huge fail for the internet being a news source), coupons.. I clip out and save hundreds of dollars .. I can't find those same coupons online, advertisement inserts.. I like to know what is on sale at the local grocery store BEFORE I get to the grocery store.
I am sorry, but the mindset of the /.
reader only really works for a very small number of people.
Death of newspapers?
Only when everyone just plain stops reading, period.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28412135</id>
	<title>Re:The real problem is marginal cost</title>
	<author>Darinbob</author>
	<datestamp>1245610920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And some who read slashdot also read newspapers.<br><br>It's a fad of some slashdot readers to declare the death of anything that can be done in a different more technical way.  As soon as 5 people purchased Kindles, one of those people declared that anything that came before the Kindle was dead (not just obsolete or on the road to obsolescence).  Now that there are a total of 10 people who've purchased a Kindle some have noticed it isn't the perfect replacement.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And some who read slashdot also read newspapers.It 's a fad of some slashdot readers to declare the death of anything that can be done in a different more technical way .
As soon as 5 people purchased Kindles , one of those people declared that anything that came before the Kindle was dead ( not just obsolete or on the road to obsolescence ) .
Now that there are a total of 10 people who 've purchased a Kindle some have noticed it is n't the perfect replacement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And some who read slashdot also read newspapers.It's a fad of some slashdot readers to declare the death of anything that can be done in a different more technical way.
As soon as 5 people purchased Kindles, one of those people declared that anything that came before the Kindle was dead (not just obsolete or on the road to obsolescence).
Now that there are a total of 10 people who've purchased a Kindle some have noticed it isn't the perfect replacement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28410825</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28415393</id>
	<title>The real problem is not marginal cost</title>
	<author>1369IC</author>
	<datestamp>1245595260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>  <p>"With the internet, though, newspapers are no longer local, so all the newspapers compete on the internet with each other, and there is no real bottom to the cost."</p><p>I think you stated the solution as a negative fact.  Newspapers can be local.  In fact, they need to be local, because local is a value they can add to the equation.  They can still gather and arrange facts better than anybody, and they can still get access and sell the product of that access.  People will still pay for that.</p><p>What they can't do is all compete as national/international publications anymore.  They could do that when there were only a few choices, first, the two or three local big papers, and later the one big local paper and the national papers flown or satellited in: NY Times, USA Today, etc.  So Muncie or Syracuse could have a national/international publication with what they did supplemented by the news services.  </p><p>The internet kills that by putting all those pseudo-national publications in the same market, and there's just not a market for that many national papers.  And the Muncies and Syracuses can't compete with the NY Times and the Washington Post at the national and international level.  </p><p>The market I think we need to look at is magazines.  The old truism was that there was a market for three major publications on any subject: Road &amp; Track, Car &amp; Driver and Motor Trend.  Usually there were two biggies and a third guy trailing and doing things differently.  After the big three you went niche: magazines dedicated to Porsches, local or regional mags, British roadsters, muscle cars, etc.  They all did fine, but they didn't challenge the big guys.</p><p>So if that's the model we're headed for, you'll get your big three -- NY Times, Washington Post and one other one, take your pick from a half dozen -- and a bunch of niche papers: Wall Street Journal, papers smart enough to be very local, maybe a Kansas City paper or a Mountain states paper for their regions, that kind of thing.  I can envision a tier, actually: your local paper that will sit through the town hall meetings and catch the locals in graft and corruption; the state or regional paper that has resources the locals don't and knows its area better and will cover grain prices or water rights issues, and has access the NY Times doesn't and doesn't want to provide; and a national paper.</p><p>They just need to figure out a model quickly and kick the bean counters the hell out of the office suites.  In gradual school I read a study about the second papers in major cities and how they died.  In every case they weren't making enough money, so they cut staff and/or pages (or color, or paper quality, whatever) to protect the profit margin.  The readers noticed they were getting less value and defected, which made advertisers go and/or rates drop, and so the papers made cuts to protect the profit margin.  It was a death cycle that they didn't figure out and eventually the big paper in town bought them out.  The exception that proved the rule was one paper run by the heir to the family tradition who said to hell with it and added reporters.  The readers noticed and sales went up and that paper ended up devouring the one that had been bigger.  But bean counters will never get it.  It's what they did to GM (cut costs and therefore quality to increase margins and be amazed when nobody wants to buy your cars). You see it day after day in corporate America.  Bean counters don't know what you do, they don't know quality when they see it, but they can count and they know everyone in business is supposed to bow to the great god of profit.</p><p>It's not that I'm against profit, but you've got to make money doing a good job at what you do.  If the recurring financial bubble fiascoes teach us anything, it should be that bankers, accountants and these all-purpose managers aren't the answer to anything in particular, even banks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" With the internet , though , newspapers are no longer local , so all the newspapers compete on the internet with each other , and there is no real bottom to the cost .
" I think you stated the solution as a negative fact .
Newspapers can be local .
In fact , they need to be local , because local is a value they can add to the equation .
They can still gather and arrange facts better than anybody , and they can still get access and sell the product of that access .
People will still pay for that.What they ca n't do is all compete as national/international publications anymore .
They could do that when there were only a few choices , first , the two or three local big papers , and later the one big local paper and the national papers flown or satellited in : NY Times , USA Today , etc .
So Muncie or Syracuse could have a national/international publication with what they did supplemented by the news services .
The internet kills that by putting all those pseudo-national publications in the same market , and there 's just not a market for that many national papers .
And the Muncies and Syracuses ca n't compete with the NY Times and the Washington Post at the national and international level .
The market I think we need to look at is magazines .
The old truism was that there was a market for three major publications on any subject : Road &amp; Track , Car &amp; Driver and Motor Trend .
Usually there were two biggies and a third guy trailing and doing things differently .
After the big three you went niche : magazines dedicated to Porsches , local or regional mags , British roadsters , muscle cars , etc .
They all did fine , but they did n't challenge the big guys.So if that 's the model we 're headed for , you 'll get your big three -- NY Times , Washington Post and one other one , take your pick from a half dozen -- and a bunch of niche papers : Wall Street Journal , papers smart enough to be very local , maybe a Kansas City paper or a Mountain states paper for their regions , that kind of thing .
I can envision a tier , actually : your local paper that will sit through the town hall meetings and catch the locals in graft and corruption ; the state or regional paper that has resources the locals do n't and knows its area better and will cover grain prices or water rights issues , and has access the NY Times does n't and does n't want to provide ; and a national paper.They just need to figure out a model quickly and kick the bean counters the hell out of the office suites .
In gradual school I read a study about the second papers in major cities and how they died .
In every case they were n't making enough money , so they cut staff and/or pages ( or color , or paper quality , whatever ) to protect the profit margin .
The readers noticed they were getting less value and defected , which made advertisers go and/or rates drop , and so the papers made cuts to protect the profit margin .
It was a death cycle that they did n't figure out and eventually the big paper in town bought them out .
The exception that proved the rule was one paper run by the heir to the family tradition who said to hell with it and added reporters .
The readers noticed and sales went up and that paper ended up devouring the one that had been bigger .
But bean counters will never get it .
It 's what they did to GM ( cut costs and therefore quality to increase margins and be amazed when nobody wants to buy your cars ) .
You see it day after day in corporate America .
Bean counters do n't know what you do , they do n't know quality when they see it , but they can count and they know everyone in business is supposed to bow to the great god of profit.It 's not that I 'm against profit , but you 've got to make money doing a good job at what you do .
If the recurring financial bubble fiascoes teach us anything , it should be that bankers , accountants and these all-purpose managers are n't the answer to anything in particular , even banks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  "With the internet, though, newspapers are no longer local, so all the newspapers compete on the internet with each other, and there is no real bottom to the cost.
"I think you stated the solution as a negative fact.
Newspapers can be local.
In fact, they need to be local, because local is a value they can add to the equation.
They can still gather and arrange facts better than anybody, and they can still get access and sell the product of that access.
People will still pay for that.What they can't do is all compete as national/international publications anymore.
They could do that when there were only a few choices, first, the two or three local big papers, and later the one big local paper and the national papers flown or satellited in: NY Times, USA Today, etc.
So Muncie or Syracuse could have a national/international publication with what they did supplemented by the news services.
The internet kills that by putting all those pseudo-national publications in the same market, and there's just not a market for that many national papers.
And the Muncies and Syracuses can't compete with the NY Times and the Washington Post at the national and international level.
The market I think we need to look at is magazines.
The old truism was that there was a market for three major publications on any subject: Road &amp; Track, Car &amp; Driver and Motor Trend.
Usually there were two biggies and a third guy trailing and doing things differently.
After the big three you went niche: magazines dedicated to Porsches, local or regional mags, British roadsters, muscle cars, etc.
They all did fine, but they didn't challenge the big guys.So if that's the model we're headed for, you'll get your big three -- NY Times, Washington Post and one other one, take your pick from a half dozen -- and a bunch of niche papers: Wall Street Journal, papers smart enough to be very local, maybe a Kansas City paper or a Mountain states paper for their regions, that kind of thing.
I can envision a tier, actually: your local paper that will sit through the town hall meetings and catch the locals in graft and corruption; the state or regional paper that has resources the locals don't and knows its area better and will cover grain prices or water rights issues, and has access the NY Times doesn't and doesn't want to provide; and a national paper.They just need to figure out a model quickly and kick the bean counters the hell out of the office suites.
In gradual school I read a study about the second papers in major cities and how they died.
In every case they weren't making enough money, so they cut staff and/or pages (or color, or paper quality, whatever) to protect the profit margin.
The readers noticed they were getting less value and defected, which made advertisers go and/or rates drop, and so the papers made cuts to protect the profit margin.
It was a death cycle that they didn't figure out and eventually the big paper in town bought them out.
The exception that proved the rule was one paper run by the heir to the family tradition who said to hell with it and added reporters.
The readers noticed and sales went up and that paper ended up devouring the one that had been bigger.
But bean counters will never get it.
It's what they did to GM (cut costs and therefore quality to increase margins and be amazed when nobody wants to buy your cars).
You see it day after day in corporate America.
Bean counters don't know what you do, they don't know quality when they see it, but they can count and they know everyone in business is supposed to bow to the great god of profit.It's not that I'm against profit, but you've got to make money doing a good job at what you do.
If the recurring financial bubble fiascoes teach us anything, it should be that bankers, accountants and these all-purpose managers aren't the answer to anything in particular, even banks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28410615</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28411003</id>
	<title>Re:The real problem is marginal cost</title>
	<author>owlnation</author>
	<datestamp>1245601740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>With the internet, though, newspapers are no longer local, so all the newspapers compete on the internet with each other, and there is no real bottom to the cost.<br> <br>

The only real solution is for newspapers to continue to go out of business.</p></div></blockquote><p>

The first part of this quote is the clue to why the second part isn't necessarily correct. The internet does "local" really, really badly -- currently, at least.<br> <br>

Searching for a local service in Google, in English, will most probably give you either a large international dot.com result, or dozens and dozens of link farm sites. It's pretty hard to find the right answer. This is less true if you search in a more localized language, because the link-farmers haven't bothered gaming Google as much with that yet. But in English, you're pretty much going to have to search for a while to find anything meaningful local. Google and others have a very long way to go with improving search.<br> <br>

Local newspapers are useful. There's dozens of scandals and stories happening in every reasonable sized town. No-one, upon no-one is really digging into those stories. Someone should. <br> <br>

People will buy newspapers that actually inform them about what is going on locally. It doesn't have to be up-to-the-second relevant. A big expose of a local political scandal can wait a day or two if no-one else is carrying the story, and no-one is. People will not buy local papers that have international stories or celebutard crap in them -- they can find that anywhere and everywhere on the net. People will buy local papers that have genuine local investigative news in them. Local papers are a good place to advertise local services -- because the internet serves them badly too.<br> <br>

Put local news and local advertisers together and you have absolutely no competition for that model right now. People keep thinking too big. This is one case where small is strong.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>With the internet , though , newspapers are no longer local , so all the newspapers compete on the internet with each other , and there is no real bottom to the cost .
The only real solution is for newspapers to continue to go out of business .
The first part of this quote is the clue to why the second part is n't necessarily correct .
The internet does " local " really , really badly -- currently , at least .
Searching for a local service in Google , in English , will most probably give you either a large international dot.com result , or dozens and dozens of link farm sites .
It 's pretty hard to find the right answer .
This is less true if you search in a more localized language , because the link-farmers have n't bothered gaming Google as much with that yet .
But in English , you 're pretty much going to have to search for a while to find anything meaningful local .
Google and others have a very long way to go with improving search .
Local newspapers are useful .
There 's dozens of scandals and stories happening in every reasonable sized town .
No-one , upon no-one is really digging into those stories .
Someone should .
People will buy newspapers that actually inform them about what is going on locally .
It does n't have to be up-to-the-second relevant .
A big expose of a local political scandal can wait a day or two if no-one else is carrying the story , and no-one is .
People will not buy local papers that have international stories or celebutard crap in them -- they can find that anywhere and everywhere on the net .
People will buy local papers that have genuine local investigative news in them .
Local papers are a good place to advertise local services -- because the internet serves them badly too .
Put local news and local advertisers together and you have absolutely no competition for that model right now .
People keep thinking too big .
This is one case where small is strong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With the internet, though, newspapers are no longer local, so all the newspapers compete on the internet with each other, and there is no real bottom to the cost.
The only real solution is for newspapers to continue to go out of business.
The first part of this quote is the clue to why the second part isn't necessarily correct.
The internet does "local" really, really badly -- currently, at least.
Searching for a local service in Google, in English, will most probably give you either a large international dot.com result, or dozens and dozens of link farm sites.
It's pretty hard to find the right answer.
This is less true if you search in a more localized language, because the link-farmers haven't bothered gaming Google as much with that yet.
But in English, you're pretty much going to have to search for a while to find anything meaningful local.
Google and others have a very long way to go with improving search.
Local newspapers are useful.
There's dozens of scandals and stories happening in every reasonable sized town.
No-one, upon no-one is really digging into those stories.
Someone should.
People will buy newspapers that actually inform them about what is going on locally.
It doesn't have to be up-to-the-second relevant.
A big expose of a local political scandal can wait a day or two if no-one else is carrying the story, and no-one is.
People will not buy local papers that have international stories or celebutard crap in them -- they can find that anywhere and everywhere on the net.
People will buy local papers that have genuine local investigative news in them.
Local papers are a good place to advertise local services -- because the internet serves them badly too.
Put local news and local advertisers together and you have absolutely no competition for that model right now.
People keep thinking too big.
This is one case where small is strong.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28410615</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28411553</id>
	<title>He outlines the reasons papers are dying</title>
	<author>SuperKendall</author>
	<datestamp>1245606900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Newspapers, by contrast, opine on the importance of the day's news using easy-to-understand design conventions -- important stories appear on front pages, with the most important ones going higher on the page and getting more space and bigger headlines. </i></p><p>But who decides what is most important?  The newspapers.  The design is a reflection of what the people who run the newspaper deem most important.</p><p>A newspaper is only better if you agree with the choices the designer has made in leading you to read certain things.  Design is just a tool, and like all tools can be misused to the detriment of the work.</p><p>The kindle then may actually be a better delivery system for an average reader  because it strips away a layer of bias by flattening design, allowing the user easier flow into stories they actually want to read.</p><p>The optimal thing would be a combination of the two approaches where some kind of AI lays out a virtual newspaper on your kindle, using the same design techniques to highlight stories you are most likely interested in.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Newspapers , by contrast , opine on the importance of the day 's news using easy-to-understand design conventions -- important stories appear on front pages , with the most important ones going higher on the page and getting more space and bigger headlines .
But who decides what is most important ?
The newspapers .
The design is a reflection of what the people who run the newspaper deem most important.A newspaper is only better if you agree with the choices the designer has made in leading you to read certain things .
Design is just a tool , and like all tools can be misused to the detriment of the work.The kindle then may actually be a better delivery system for an average reader because it strips away a layer of bias by flattening design , allowing the user easier flow into stories they actually want to read.The optimal thing would be a combination of the two approaches where some kind of AI lays out a virtual newspaper on your kindle , using the same design techniques to highlight stories you are most likely interested in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Newspapers, by contrast, opine on the importance of the day's news using easy-to-understand design conventions -- important stories appear on front pages, with the most important ones going higher on the page and getting more space and bigger headlines.
But who decides what is most important?
The newspapers.
The design is a reflection of what the people who run the newspaper deem most important.A newspaper is only better if you agree with the choices the designer has made in leading you to read certain things.
Design is just a tool, and like all tools can be misused to the detriment of the work.The kindle then may actually be a better delivery system for an average reader  because it strips away a layer of bias by flattening design, allowing the user easier flow into stories they actually want to read.The optimal thing would be a combination of the two approaches where some kind of AI lays out a virtual newspaper on your kindle, using the same design techniques to highlight stories you are most likely interested in.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28410975</id>
	<title>Re:What a concept</title>
	<author>TimHunter</author>
	<datestamp>1245601560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Part of the reason newspapers are in trouble is because they tell they reader what they think is important.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Wrong. One of the reasons we pay for a newspaper is to have professional editors select and rank-order news for us. There is far, far too much "news" out there for us to be able to do this on our own. Newspapers choose what they think their readers will be interested in (and frequently, what they think their readers <i>should</i> be interested in) and present it accordingly. Yes, they do know more than you do about the news. It's how they make their living.
</p><p>If you don't like the selections they've made on your behalf, choose another paper. If enough people dislike the selections, the newspaper will have to get another editor.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Part of the reason newspapers are in trouble is because they tell they reader what they think is important .
Wrong. One of the reasons we pay for a newspaper is to have professional editors select and rank-order news for us .
There is far , far too much " news " out there for us to be able to do this on our own .
Newspapers choose what they think their readers will be interested in ( and frequently , what they think their readers should be interested in ) and present it accordingly .
Yes , they do know more than you do about the news .
It 's how they make their living .
If you do n't like the selections they 've made on your behalf , choose another paper .
If enough people dislike the selections , the newspaper will have to get another editor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Part of the reason newspapers are in trouble is because they tell they reader what they think is important.
Wrong. One of the reasons we pay for a newspaper is to have professional editors select and rank-order news for us.
There is far, far too much "news" out there for us to be able to do this on our own.
Newspapers choose what they think their readers will be interested in (and frequently, what they think their readers should be interested in) and present it accordingly.
Yes, they do know more than you do about the news.
It's how they make their living.
If you don't like the selections they've made on your behalf, choose another paper.
If enough people dislike the selections, the newspaper will have to get another editor.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28410647</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28410907</id>
	<title>Google news has drawbacks</title>
	<author>unixan</author>
	<datestamp>1245601020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I used to read Google News exclusively, then I stopped (well, relegated it to minority status) in favor of other news sites for some reasons:<ol>
<li>More and more stories seem to be opinion pieces / glorified blogs, not genuine news.</li>
<li>Because of the 15-minute refresh interval, top stories can rotate out before you've had a chance to go see it.</li>
<li>The RSS feed doesn't seem to be organized by any sensible order; important top news would be a good starting point, at least.</li>
<li>Every new organization has different standards for story depth; using Google News gives you inconsistent coverage because it doesn't seem to take story depth into account when choosing a source to link to.</li>
</ol><p>And most irritating of all, sometimes the source being linked to wants you to register / login and possibly pay for subscription.  I'm not against subscribing in order to pay for the effort, but I'm not going to pay subscription to every news site that Google News links to.

</p><p>And besides, a local newspaper provides you local-interest stories that can be important to know, in addition to the same kind of news that Google News collects.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I used to read Google News exclusively , then I stopped ( well , relegated it to minority status ) in favor of other news sites for some reasons : More and more stories seem to be opinion pieces / glorified blogs , not genuine news .
Because of the 15-minute refresh interval , top stories can rotate out before you 've had a chance to go see it .
The RSS feed does n't seem to be organized by any sensible order ; important top news would be a good starting point , at least .
Every new organization has different standards for story depth ; using Google News gives you inconsistent coverage because it does n't seem to take story depth into account when choosing a source to link to .
And most irritating of all , sometimes the source being linked to wants you to register / login and possibly pay for subscription .
I 'm not against subscribing in order to pay for the effort , but I 'm not going to pay subscription to every news site that Google News links to .
And besides , a local newspaper provides you local-interest stories that can be important to know , in addition to the same kind of news that Google News collects .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used to read Google News exclusively, then I stopped (well, relegated it to minority status) in favor of other news sites for some reasons:
More and more stories seem to be opinion pieces / glorified blogs, not genuine news.
Because of the 15-minute refresh interval, top stories can rotate out before you've had a chance to go see it.
The RSS feed doesn't seem to be organized by any sensible order; important top news would be a good starting point, at least.
Every new organization has different standards for story depth; using Google News gives you inconsistent coverage because it doesn't seem to take story depth into account when choosing a source to link to.
And most irritating of all, sometimes the source being linked to wants you to register / login and possibly pay for subscription.
I'm not against subscribing in order to pay for the effort, but I'm not going to pay subscription to every news site that Google News links to.
And besides, a local newspaper provides you local-interest stories that can be important to know, in addition to the same kind of news that Google News collects.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28410483</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28417247</id>
	<title>Re:google news</title>
	<author>jawahar</author>
	<datestamp>1245609600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Only 1\% of World Population is ONLINE. Rest of them are connected through Newspapers, Mobile phones, and Word of Mouth.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Only 1 \ % of World Population is ONLINE .
Rest of them are connected through Newspapers , Mobile phones , and Word of Mouth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only 1\% of World Population is ONLINE.
Rest of them are connected through Newspapers, Mobile phones, and Word of Mouth.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28410483</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28410765</id>
	<title>The newspaper isn't dead...</title>
	<author>McGregorMortis</author>
	<datestamp>1245599820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... it just smells funny.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... it just smells funny .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... it just smells funny.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_1315223_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28410923
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28410761
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_1315223_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28410975
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28410647
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_1315223_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28411217
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28410761
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_1315223_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28414011
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28410615
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_1315223_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28411579
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28410553
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_1315223_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28417247
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28410483
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_1315223_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28415393
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28410615
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_1315223_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28410907
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28410483
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_1315223_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28411485
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28410553
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_1315223_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28411247
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28410615
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_1315223_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28411031
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28410761
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_1315223_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28412197
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28410761
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_1315223_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28410931
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28410615
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_1315223_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28411375
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28410761
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_1315223_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28412887
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28410483
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_1315223_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28412135
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28410825
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28410615
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_1315223_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28421333
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28410463
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_1315223_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28414785
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28410553
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_1315223_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28411857
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28410615
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_1315223_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28415557
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28410615
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_1315223_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28410537
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28410483
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_1315223_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28411003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28410615
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_21_1315223.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28410885
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_21_1315223.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28410469
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_21_1315223.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28410761
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28412197
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28411375
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28411217
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28411031
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28410923
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_21_1315223.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28410647
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28410975
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_21_1315223.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28410483
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28412887
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28410537
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28417247
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28410907
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_21_1315223.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28410615
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28414011
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28410825
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28412135
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28411857
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28410931
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28415557
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28411003
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28415393
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28411247
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_21_1315223.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28410855
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_21_1315223.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28410463
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28421333
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_21_1315223.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28410553
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28414785
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28411485
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1315223.28411579
</commentlist>
</conversation>
