After takin' a swig o' grog, cc belched out
this bit o' wisdom:
> On May 19, 8:24 am, Roy Schestowitz <newsgro...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> And also more popular. The more the conglomerates close down, they more people
>> they'll turn away.
>>
>> Charge to read CNN? Then people will read another source.
>>
>> Closed access to academic journals? Then people will just Google for what's
>> public, maybe Wikipedia.
>>
>> They fight a losing battle. Information wants to be free.
>
> Information may want to be free, but who is going to host it? I think
> you've mentioned Microsoft Vista being #1 on Time's list of failures,
> but YouTube is on there too. They can't continue to lose money and
> host all those videos. The Internet is not a free enterprise. You have
> to pay for bandwidth. So how do you propose these large sites pay for
> their bandwidth without charging people? Ads? Ads haven't generated
> enough revenue so far. What about employees? Are they supposed to work
> for free? I understand that it's trivial to blog that an inside source
> told you that Bill Gates is funding the Somali pirates, but actual
> reporters are needed to get actual facts and report the news to these
> sites. How is that going to work if they're not paid? Unless
> everything in the world was free all of a sudden, people aren't going
> to work for free.
Good points, but you're forgetting about television.
Of course, with free teevee you really do get what you pay for.
Mostly bread and circuses.
--
There will be big changes for you but you will be happy.
|
|
