The Masses, those who have come to the internet now, the late adopters have recently run into something us long time users know: their are trolls amung us.
I bring this up because i’m starting to see more and more of these posts.  In the NY times, poor Richard made a (Gasp!) comment about Stephen Fry, the British writer, actor and television personality.  (he called his tweets boring).  The writers and actors of Stargate Universe are actually getting depressed.

These are choice examples, but still, a wave that’s growing.  From twitter under the control of it’s user mob. To backlash against something (google wave: at the time) not yet even finalized.
I have something to say to you all, thou i admire you all:  “Welcome to the internet.  Now ignore the fools on it and go back to doing awesome work.”

Trolling has but two purposes: Provoke a emotional “negative response” and make express a (angry) and not always wrong point of view. But Trolling, and getting yelled at have been part of life forever, using the internet just requires more “emotional armor” than most people are used to. Admittedly, many people have to have a thick skin to do their jobs (think journalist and Politicians.) but ordinary people are not prepared for “vitriol” backlash they get after posting an otherwise innocent comment.  Thank fully i spent many times back in the BBS and Forum era.  You learn to read and ignore something a majority of internet users are JUST coming to grips with.

What hurts, is that someone you don’t know, who knows nothing about you, feels the need to call you a “dirty, lying bastard who should have his mother killed” it shocks, it raises your hackles, but I have both sympathy and yet none.  If i say Madonna sucks, and her twitter 2000 followers get angry about it (i don’t even know or care if Madonna has a twitter account btw)… these are the same people who would (in the past) flood my email if they could find it, who would send me hate mail if they knew my address, but in reality, would share a beer with me at a pub or ask me a sane questions in real life (”Why do you think that?”).  The other 2 million people who care about Madonna don’t give a damn what i think!  They would just laugh of my comments and keep going with their decidedly busy lives (listening to Madonna i might add).

I say again. “Ignore the fools and move on.” better yet, Disenvowell them!

My word of Advice: No matter what you do, their  is ALWAYS backlash.  Accept it. It’s a bell curve.  Humans must disagree with each other.  It’s something we all know: The squeaky wheel get’s the grease;  the loud person is always listed to; Most people who write their congress men are the ones who disagree.

Furthermore, these people think they are in the majority (See Sanford Study) , often times, unfortunately, they are not.

We know they(Trolls & Angry Vitriol) are not in the Majority..

Sticks and Stones, people, sticks and stones.

New ways of tackling Cancer are always being highlighted, -See below- but, there have been no advanced  changes in the fight of this disease.  One thing that has been identified at contributing to this slowness is the funding process (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/28/health/research/28cancer.html?em ). We think there is something else, we think capitalism wide, there is no real incentive to cure cancer. It’s not a conscious focus, it’s just the situation we’ve worked ourselves to.  

Cures, we believe, are one of the true governmental fixable problems.  Governments should dive in, collecting the Altruistic focus of us all, and then, finishing, switch gears.   A government should decisively work on curing cancer or anything else (like how they fund DARPA – Five years, all the money you like).  But the time limit is important.  The problem with Cancer now (40 year later since Nixon declared war) is the number of industries dedicated to it and a bureaucracy self interested need to survive.  This self interest now prevails, in the funding system- no one wants to fund a bad Grant so the grant system plays it safe, and few “leaps” can be made without risk-, in the Drug dispensing system, in hospitals and so on.

Admittedly the medical business model – for profit healing-; is flawed.  It’s not even cancer; seriously, where was the last time we cured something?  The capitalist business model for subscription based essential goods (or perceived essential –like internet service) is too compelling, and profitable.   Game developers and applications developers do it, Cellphone providers are doing it.  These are sure fire cash flow and so are cancer drugs and charities and sponsorships.  Entire industries (which have matured for 40 years) now solely exist on the cancer existing. There are numerous charities, charities events, grants, section of the NIH (national Institute of Health) dedicated to cancer.  Think of all the men, women, and events that would need to go away, find new jobs or even have to learn an entire new skill if cancer were cured.

Curing cancer is an end to a cash flow stream.  It means a couple of treatments, then done, over.  No 20 years of drugs and $100,000 medical bills.  No need to explore being an Oncologist in Medical college.   But if we, as a species, are going to say “There is something more than survival of the fittest, but also the extension of a health species.” We can’t keep figuring costs into keeping our fellow human alive.”

Ok, we are being too cynical. But if we cured cancer to morrow, I believe we’d have to slow roll a cure in over 10 years, so people know it’s coming, wind down. If a miracle cure were delivered tomorrow, shock would hit the medical community; people wouldn’t know what to do with themselves.   And you thought the bank collapse of 2008-2009 was interesting.

Promising Cancer technologies: Lasers (directly burning the cancer, Sasers vibrating the cancer,  Blocking protein and toxin injections.)

Lasers in Cancer

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/therapy/lasers

Nano-tech laser kills cancer cells, leaves regular sells intact.

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2005/august10/nanotube-081005.html

Injected Isotopes type Cures or Toxins

http://gizmodo.com/379952/guy-invents-potential-cancer-cure-with-radio-machine-built-out-of-pie-pans-and-hot-dogs

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/health/research/29drug.html?em

Iran with its unrest here in the June 2009 is learning a lesson that oppressive regieme seem to never learn, what those drunk on power never seem to grasp. If you are going to pretend to give people the right to vote and chose their own way, you cannot also treat them like complete sheep and idiots.

People will accept their injustice, their oppression to a degree, but they will not accept a shell game. What do i mean?

No Choice.

Back in the Old Soviet union (and lots of dictatorships like Iraq) people were given the right to vote.  There was one candidate and he generally won with 99% of the vote (and most of the population), even when most people stayed home.  The election was a sham, everyone knew it, and that was the state of things, you went on with your life.

Choice

In  contrast, in Venezula they had a close election, In America 2000, and 2004 they had a close election.  People were upset and they voiced it… and their countries and govenment still stand. Why…  Many countries have had close elections, there is always talk of voter fraud and ballot fixing, but in actually democracies, the expectation matches that of what has been reported in the run up. Further more after one side loses, and there is obvious bitterness, it’s not that people don’t take to the streets and protest, its’ that the ruling powers acknowledge their protesting and basically ignores them, until they tire and go home.

General Conclusion

In a true democracy (right to vote, press freedom, right to assemble and speak), or let’s say a place where even if people don’t believe their guy lost,  They demonstrate, They bitch and then, They move on, why? because they trust the eventually digging.  Those who lost, and who think they should not have lost never stop seeking answers, questioning every machine, balot, they file every legal challenge and WE LET THEM!  because, that way we let them exaust themselves.  They are not following some fallacy either. If they found evidence they know it would be reported, the courts would listen, etc

The Problem with Pretending.

Those pretending to be a democracy always overreach.  Instead, not only do they stack the vote but they also stack the vote into the unbelievable range.  This is their crime or, real mistake.  Then after some initial disturbances the ruling class feel so shaky, so not in control, they then crack down on the people.  Often enough, this works –people like living after all.

The cause of the disturbance is the same- overreaching.  Whether or not the Voting in Iran was fixed two things have happened.  a) the expectation of a close election was a landslide (over reach) and then, telling the people that protesting the result would have grave consequences. (over reach).

The fix would have been simple. Let the people have the retally and then bring the counting in close with expectation, say 52/48 and still declare your guy the winner.   After all, those pretending usually have control of the media. It’s too late now anyway. The people are starting to figure out their are more of them, than the ruling class. This will only end in blood.

In the end, Pretending you are a democracy is bad, or just works until fear grips the ruling class. Just admit you’re not, and people accept it because they understand it, they understand those rules.  The rules are not going to change suddenly.   The Mob does not like change they can’t anticipate.

Web 2.0 is more than technology; it’s about openness, sharing and relinquishing control.   It is a fundamental way of thinking about data, in that the owner of the data, cannot possibly think about all the ways –good or bad- that data can be used, but with enough users, force more good than bad effects from the data source.

Social networking is a very small part of the Web 2.0 schema.  For instance, Social networking is mainly about socializing.  While all data sharing has a social concept; the Department of Defense forum for Lessons Learned for Officers serving in Iraq isn’t about dinner and wine, it is about keeping soldiers alive.  Likewise, the interactive latitude and longitude map of known improvised Explosive Device (IED) locations in Iraq is Web 2.0 application which focuses on not losing vital Intel when solders go off duty and rotate back to the United States.

While many people do not understand twitter (a popular text blogging site) a user using an API is now sending arrest records across twitter using the open sheriff database.  A police officer or detective can now have every arrest sent to his phone, important if he has an informant he’s keeping tabs on.  He can have this same service in his car, but he can’t take his car laptop with him everywhere he goes.  If he could text back instructions on what to do with that suspect, from the field his ability increases immensely. [1]

Harnessing Collective Intelligence.

The lesson: Network effects from user contributions are the key to … dominance in the Web 2.0 era.

·    Hyperlinking is the foundation of the web. As users add new content, and new sites, it is bound in to the structure of the web by other users discovering the content and linking to it. Much as synapses form in the brain, with associations becoming stronger through repetition or intensity, the web of connections grows organically as an output of the collective activity of all web users.

Tim Orielly suggests Web 2.0 strengths lies in the independency of linking and crosses over relationships, the “Drill Down” ability of the endless links.  Why is Wikipedia great? Because each article has multiple links to many other topics. Face book? Click on a friend, click on a birthday, find other people with the same birthday, find interests, find other people with same interest, and so on. What about a site like Politico.com? It aggregates other news sites, and you can follow their links, to other news sites, meaning a story can followed forever in a widening circle.

Ease of User manipulation: Trickle down Smarts.

Part of the Harnessing of intelligence is that someone one has never heard is doing his best to share his ideas with the world.  People who by day go to an office can and often in his spare time goes back to the web and creates a Facebook interface that shows real time location of friends flicker photo’s and locates it on Google Maps, and is able to be shown on any smart phone.  The motivations are many -needed the app himself, thought it was cool, proof of concept effort- but the ability to share it with the masses is what makes the entire project worthwhile.

Web 2.0 would not be possible without companies or project makers willing to make data accessible through API (Application interfaces).  The most popular sites release API’s and tools which allow the sites data to be minded based on rules set up in the interfaces, where interested parties (people, companies, developers) create mini programs to manipulate accessed data itself. 

Most of the users on a site are simply consumers of the world of the coders or programmers, but the shear number of ways and ease of use to manipulate what they find is what draws people to a site.

Web 2.0 benefits from silent people tolling away to enhance the data and then sharing with the masses; consumers who are always seeking ways to manipulate their links and connections to other people or their own data.

Key Drivers

Web 2.0 lesson:

• leverage customer-self service and algorithmic data management to reach out to the entire web, to the edges and not just the center, to the long tail and not just the head.

Web 2.0 principles: Lessons of Technology and Adoption Life Cycles[2]

• The service must share, and keep sharing, even allow its own content off site.
• The service automatically gets better the more people use it.
• Service must be easy to use for everyone interested in using it and allow new users to learn instantly.
• Service must help users interact with other users easily.
• The service content must keep evolving, and become more “robust” and mature.
• Speed of updates is paramount.
• Achieve critical adoption by targeted userbase.

What is not Web 2.0

As mentioned, a supposed Web 2.0 site can quickly fall behind.  MySpace is by all traditional measures a web 2.0 site, but it suffers from lack of use and innovation.  A flooded market can also reduce sites effectiveness still, these are not static.  However for a traditional definition, these are areas where the information is not only static it cannot be added or made, “more useful.”

The key therefore to Web 2.0 is interactivity and access; social networking sites usually lead the way in both these fields, and are usually the first people think off for “Web 2.0” examples; however, one must remember that email would be the 2.0 version of voicemail but it wasn’t until email on the cell phone that messaging achieved true Web 2.0 status, always there, every present.

In effect, anything can be remade to allowing users to work with the data, however, not all things area accessible.

The Innovation Life Cycle[1] 

The 2.0 moniker means innovative, different, Wow! And yet evolving, and filled with potential able to reach past its original function or intent.  Any 2.0 means the system (service or technology et al) has evolved or transitioned to a second phase, an “exciting” every present, “We can’t believe we lived without this” Stage.  It’s also a signal of “reinvention.” The 2.0 moniker fits right between early adapters and early majority.

The Innovation Life Cycle

• Stage 1.0: Creation for Specificity - A system is targeted at a specific group or to fill a perceived need. This comprises of Innovators and early adopters who tend to expand the service by adding and discovering other uses and are the major force of influencing others to use the product. 
• Stage 2:0 Extension – The System achieves a critical mass by extending beyond its core target audience, and targeted users.  It becomes “The next big thing.” And suddenly it is the conversation. This is where Early Majority comes into play.
• Stage 3.0 Ever Present – The system is so ever-present it becomes a verb. (Google, Tweet, Xerox, Phone, Email.) The system is no longer Novel, and is dis-attached from the technology that spawned it and many other systems or technologies are created to support it.   A new category of classification may even be created for it.  This is the state where Late Majority and Laggards adoptors are literally pulled into the massive forward wave.
• Stage 4.0 Reinvention and/or Abandonment – At this stage, innovators again take over, but the system is clearly on its way out.  Laggards only exist here, and branded as “not with it.”  It should be noted that Laggards can sometimes drive the innovation model in an effort to preserve the “idealistic” or cultural feel they had as in Stage 2.0.  (Roller Skates to Roller Blade, VCR to DVR, 8 Track to Tape, Return of Vinyl, and the remodeled PT cruiser car.)
• Stage 5.0 Obsolescence – Few things truly reach this level of obsolesce without force.  The Vacuum Tube for TVs is totally gone, even thou TVs still exist.  8 Tracks are gone, even thou the ability to record and copy Information still exist.  Often times, part of the technology that has been redesigned.

To understand 2.0 moniker as part of the Innovation Life cycle, let’s me first use an example.

Twitter is not a web 2.0 Site by itself. It’s static and rather boring.  If one had to go to twitter web site all the time, it would not be a great website, forever lost in a niche; with the publishing of a twitter API, the ability to interact with twitter and twitter users in many different ways has allowed twitter to grow.

Twitter is now used for more than talking about or describing breakfast. It is now used for Alerts, to deliver news and to garner almost real time views on a subject better than a focus group. I can twitter from my computer.  My cellphone can twitter. My Friends twitter. I can embed twitter on my web site. The news uses twitter. The police use twitter. People expect other people to tweet and wonder why they don’t. I expect that when I tweet someone I get an answer. Twitter is used in warnings and notifications, to aggregate news and for statistical study.

What is interesting about this example is that this is also the definition of email when it started.  This is the pager 10 years ago, this is instant messaging (Aim, Yahoo Messenger, ICQ, and Jabber) 8 years ago, and this is Myspace 5 years ago.  Now those technologies seem either ever present (stage 3.0), tired, or defunct, or no longer “novel.” (  Clearly Stage 4.0 or 5.0)

Innovation Phase definition.

It is during the stage 4.0 that a system fractures, and moves to either a new medium (tape to DVD) or the current medium continues to be reinvented (Telephone to cellphone).  Because of this its is important to note be clear about the boundaries of the Innovation Life cycle we are using.

We can say we are in:

• Email 3.0 (everyone has email, it’ not novel) or instead Messaging 4.0 (after voice mail, email, Aim, and it’s clear twitter is a reinvention of messaging)
• Skiing 4.0 (Skying is clearly being reinvented with the introduction of the snowboard or Snowboarding 3.0 (people are starting to ask, don’t you now board, you should try) or Winter Activities 2.0 (winter activities are fun again, with the X games leading the branding)

The “2.0” moniker was originally used to draw a line separating the state of the Web before and after the dot-com bubble burst in 2000.  It has since taken on new meme[1], which is “An interconnected Web of services” and data manipulation.[2],  The Term of Art[3], was original crafted in 2003 by Craig Cline, Dale Dougherty, -web pioneer- and Tim O’Reilly -VP of Oreilly- during a conference planning session; that conference became the Annual Web 2.0 Conference. 

Web 2.0 is about sharing first and foremost, and  the term now encapsulates the ways we use, interact and manipulate the information, data, and relational links of the World Wide Web (“Web”) in order to enhance the Web’s delivered contents (such as Wikipedia, where any person can edit the presented information).  Without sharing of the data, no one benefits.  Furthermore, a website once designated as a “Web 2.0” site can transition out of that phase, if it becomes stagnant or its user community abandons it.

In Web 2.0 users don’t just retrieve information, but can also manipulate, delete, add, reduce, comment on, -et al-, data, but more importantly, can also remix (ex. Youtube), re-present (Playlist.com) and even enhance data (Flickr, Yahoo Web Traffic CAM for navigating the morning traffic ported to Tivo DVR[4]), sometimes creating new forms of information (real time California Wild fires information linked to Google Maps).  Users can do this manipulation with data they own, or data they are allowed to access (posting of arrested people on Twitter, accessed from static Police dept. Websites). 

As more people participate in enhancing the data, the usability and usefulness of what is being manipulated increases, forming a neural net of information that is deeply informative, simple to use and encourages its own use.  The potential for increased analysis, worthwhile participation, and enhanced work product of its targeted users is what separates Web 2.0 from forum users of Web 1.0 users who would delete, remove or corrupt the data (Individually inputted Statistics for Fantasy Sports vs Official Feeds).  While data corruption is entirely possible in Web 2.0, the “wisdom of the crowd” eventually overcomes this attempt to undermine the data and in the end produces a superior product.

As more users join in the manipulation of the data, the means of delivering data becomes feature rich, and features begin to anticipate the needs of the users. As the data repository grows, more users enter and begin to use and create more data, generating more content in a never ending cycle.  However adoption by a critical mass of the particular targeted audience[5] does not happen until the data becomes easy to use, and that is when a site has achieved its true Web 2.0 status.

Therefore, the key to naming something Web 2.0 is whether the site or service has made the transition to allow users to interact, access or manipulate the data presented to the user, especially if the user were not able to manipulate the data before, and allow the user to interact –share- with other users of that data and finally extend the new data to the world beyond to even other users who are not on the original accessing site, i.e, the long tail.(ex, Facebook buttons, Trackbacks for Blogs and links on news websites to other web sites.)

Among the insatiable desires we, as humans have, is the need to constantly change and rework our food.  I marvel at the culinary delights we concoct, and just the natural ones. I’m not even going to go in to the lime green, day glow, chemical ones we also love

*shout out to Jello.*

Still, every so often I am struck -usually over dinner- about how odd it is I’m eating something, or something I’m eating is actually edible.  Let’s examine a few:

Coffee: Someone thought it was a good idea to ground up beans (mind you, black, dark beans instead of nice green beans) instead of eating them, and wait, pour water over this ground up soup…, and drink it!  Really?  A vile, bitter tasting stuff which tastes like licking the bottom of burnt wood?  Here…, taste this, isn’t this awful?

Blow fish: Who’s the second person to try this? If you don’t know, blow fish has a deadly nerve toxin.  I bet the first person didn’t know that.  Or the second, but really, how hungry do you have to be to keep trying to eat the damn thing?  Sure, put it on your spear and stab someone. However…, eat it? Really?!

Still, these are but two examples of things that I find interesting… the other? Deep fried Twinkies.

Nuff said.

“When the conduct of men is designed to be influenced, persuasion, kind, unassuming persuasion, should ever be adopted.” Abraham Lincoln

There seems to be a problem with phones, and information in the courts. 

This article is astounding, more so I’m astounded by the silliness and stupidity of the courts.  Let’s go back to oh, 1980. I am on a Jury and I am told to go home at the end of the day… I do so. The court has to TRUST that I do not look up, speak with or discuss the case.  Now, let’s be serious, people probably did but it was to whom and impact: Your wife, your next door neighbor, they read up on the latest in the news paper…

When they came back to court the Court had to judge they didn’t violate the rules. However, if they were found to, they were dismissed or there would be a mistrial.  In short we accepted out of sight, and out of mind.

Fast forward to 2009.  It’s the same thing, people looking up info on their iPhone or twittering.  Only difference “instance and magnitude.” The solution is still the same… BAN cellphones in the court room. I mean seriously, how difficult is that. When do you so, you return right back to 1985, and you didn’t know if people broke the rules then, and you wouldn’t know now.

The twitter users are different. IF someone goes home and twitters such info, then, just as you did in 1985, you dismiss them or the trail. It’s no different. Infact, you can “ask” for such blogs and Twitters, and i’m sure defense attorney will monitor them, but better yet, attach a fine to blogging or twittering about a trial during a trail as a modified GAG order, which has existed for quite some time. 

The first time someone gets a $5000 for doing it, i bet no one else will do it.   No new laws needed, no new rules; just impose the ones you have and get back to the business of the courts.

The Point: Don’t make something a big deal with laws exist already to handle the problem…, laws and a little common sense.

Solution. Ended.

“There is no grievance that is a fit object of redress by mob law” – Abraham Lincoln

Congress is pissed about the AIG bonuses (March 17, 2009), so am I. You should be pissed too, but let us be clear:  The law of unintended consequences states clearly; (paraphrasing) if you use a simple solution to fix a complex problem, you will end up with outcome you clearly didn’t foresee.  

As we’ve learned over and over again, anything Congress agrees to immediately is a BAD idea. Legislation that is decided in about a week is written too broadly and loaded with Anti- Constitutional bias, because, really, the constitution is there to help us stop our head long rush to bias.

Examples of Quick bad laws with unforeseen consequences:

• USA Patriot Act (eventually led to the Iraq war justification and wire tapping and GITMO)
• The TARP act – Seriously, how much money did we give them (800 Billion) and still had to do it again?
• And now a potential Tax on AIG bonus specifically?  Seems ripe with equal protection bias. 

The problem is, the Tax ability of Congress (per the XVI Amendment) is DAMN broad.  On One hand, the argument to kick AIG executives in the teeth feels good, (98% to 100% tax on those people getting bonuses!) sounds awesome, but congress shouldn’t do it. The old definition still works too: A simple system cannot effectively control or predict a complex system. 

Note: Now, I understand taxes (I don’t like paying them); I am not stupid. I know that taxes are necessary to run things.  It would be a nasty and silly idea to actually allow a government (especially a capitalist government, that can print its own money) to actually go into full on business to generate funds. It has different rules, makes the laws, and will tend towards monopolistic ideals.   However, I do agree that spinning off LLC’s and 501(c)(3) -not for profit) are good in my book. It also adds some independence to the process. Governments who was in charge of making money don’t like losing money, so things will be glossed over, money will be “switched.” etc, In general, the business cycle isn’t a nice place for a bureaucracy.

Yet taxing something at 100 or 98%? For only a few people? Oh that’s just ripe for court challenge. Tacked on laws –because you’re pissed- are bad policy. If the tax was previously there as a condition of taking the money –BEFORE HAND-, well that’s one thing, that supersedes contract, as you’d be entering into a new contract with full knowledge of what you are doing.  In that way, it’s akin to filing Bankruptcy, the genuine contract thumper.

Legal Arguments against the AIG bonus Tax: Fall flat, except on purely “you shouldn’t do it” terms.

On the Equal Protection side of the fence, you can say, Congress can tax Cigarettes, Alcohol, Gas, Clothing, etc, because I can chose not to buy that thing.  And it applies to any one who buys those things, so they can’t (or shouldn’t) tax me for things imposed upon me, or given to me, (like a bonus). Because the tax is so narrow, and Imposed upon me, it should clearly violate equal protection.

Except there is the gift tax (an imposed tax).  The gift tax Congress treats like “income.” for the person getting it. 

*While we are on the subject: This “income” is general already taxed money.  A good tax would be on “Winnings and landfalls.” like Vega or lotto but the inheritance tax is silly. Inheritance is a transfer of wealth, so Congress is basically taxing “my” death.  They are basically saying “We know you possibly couldn’t have paid all the taxes you had, so we’re going to hit you again just to make sure.”

Perhaps the law would be construed as TOO narrow, but….

As for the second option, snapping the contracts?  Government can’t break the contracts for giving out bonuses with a law that would cause a ripple effect like none other. If a person can’t believe in their contract, then the ink might as well be invisible.

One real option is to force AIG to give the money back Now and then when they do fail, to send it thru tried and tested laws, on Bankruptcy filings.

Laws should work for the populous, not be used to bludgeon something that really pisses congress off.   And yes, the populous is pissed, but Mob rule is not to be acknowledged, it is a rather nasty thing.  Think about the consequence of passing something immediately.  Who’s ever going to accept money? Who’s ever going to want to be a CEO?  How about a anytime people get pissed the CEO has his money taken away? You know a consequences of that? He no longer looks out for Shareholder Value, he looks out for his own value, and making sure his kids don’t starve.  Why take risks if you will be blamed for it in the future, why innovate you could be wrong.  Punishment is a deterent, but please, never discount –personal- need or greed. People will let a company fail if it means them get to get their money for X dollars in the end.

The point:  I say congress should look at the laws they have already on the books. Don’t make more bad law.   The Tax and financial codes are thick with rules. Use them or realize they truly do suck and then make better rules.

We live in the midst of alarms; anxiety beclouds the future; we expect some new disaster with each newspaper we read - Abraham Lincoln

There are many news paper who are dying,

“Hearst is threatening to close the San Francisco Chronicle – and on Monday said it would make the Seattle Post-Intelligencer an online-only publication. Gannett, owner of USA Today, has followed The New York Times in slashing its dividend to preserve cash. Titles from the venerable Cincinnati Post to the six-year-old New York Sun have folded”

The web isn’t killing them, Aggregators on the web are killing them. But forcing aggregators to pay is just a losing game. there are too many people writing, too many links, track backs, A hacker would just reprint the NY times on a uncloseable Page in New Delhi in anger.

But i think it’s because the business model, based on Revenues from advertising, cannot really subsist in a digital age.   It’s not that people do not want to the content, infact, they want the content to get to their phones, their enhanced computer desktops, their ipods and Kindles; but they want it for free…., and that’s because they used to get it for free.  Before the Google “click” model, There was for example “Tom’s Hardware.” And on this page was a hobbyist who devoted his time to telling US the masses Hardware news. It was hard, but he was dedicated.  Well, maybe he makes money at it now, but hobbyists who are willing to just “work hard for zero return” are everywhere… they are blogging and micro blogging and letting you know what’s what without massive advertising dollars.

1 TV to the Rescue - this solution is for the big conglomerates to control a real Print side. all major News networks have a print component on their web site, but their TEXT sides are barely more than transcripts of their TV sides.  The point of their reporters is not to write a Pulitzer (written) but to win one for TV (Video).  So who wants to write a 3 page story anyway, when you can video it and it gets Youtubed! Still, TV would do good to collect some of these Talented Writers, and Make special pages for them. 

2. Bundle and Pay.  In the Age of 3G, 4g, WiMAX, Universal Wifi, Video is very important. Really Important. Phone will soon be getting video and soon, someone will approach AT&T or HULU or someone and bundle this, like cable companies did and sell it back.  That’s right, subscription. I pay Comcast, and Comcast pays the times (for views or what have you.)  Problems Is, i don’t want “15 second spot.” in my Text. I may allow it in my video, but not in my text. Yet People will pay for premium content. This is true. There is always a small group of people who WILL pay. Just like premium chocolate, or Car parts or HBO. However, HBO really hit it’s stride when it got Comcast to offer it with it’s service.  Now it has like 8 HBo channels, is offering great shows (yet still sticking to it’s “commercial free.” mantra. The same could be done for print.  Say certain sites were blocked unless you paid the extra “news paper fee.” then a .info would open up to you.  Thou, I hate this plan, as it would segment the internet, and limit free speech. Still, take a look at it, find a better way than What I’ve explained, i know it’s there.

3. Just be small. A news paper can simply live online. Being so small it hires the limited number of writers per it’s click thru, but innovation rules on the internet, and there is only so many ways to deliver print.  Soon enough I suspect your reporter will leave and start his own “click to revenue blog.”