# who's afraid of the new york times



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

minimum online subscription will be 15.00/month.

there will be a small but choice assortment of freebies, though.


----------



## CanadianCapitalist (Mar 31, 2009)

It does appear you can get around the pay wall. Just copy & paste the title of the column in Google and click the link from the results. At least, according to what a WSJ column reprinted in the Globe today. I've tried this in the past with WSJ columns I wanted to read and it seems to work.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

CC, I believe you'll need to click the _cached_ results for this to work.
Clicking on the link will bounce you off to the subscription page.
Cache seems to work most of the time for subscription based articles, reports, etc.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

As someone who has never intentionally clicked on an online ad, I'm probably one of the reasons the Times has to start charging subscription fees to its regular online readers (of which I am one).

I ponied up the money for a subscription yesterday with no complaints; it's being opened to subscribers in Canada first before being expanded to the US and the rest of the world later this month.

What's amazing is not that they've started charging fees, but that they were able to make their content free for so many years.


----------



## ChrisR (Jul 13, 2009)

brad said:


> What's amazing is not that they've started charging fees, but that they were able to make their content free for so many years.


I fully agree.

I think the real fear here is not that we will have to pay to read the news, but that only a handful of the biggest newspapers will be able to establish viable business models in the internet age. 

I fear that in the next decade the majority of newspapers will fold and we will be left with the choice of paying for our news from relatively few large news sources (like the Times), or getting our news free from a glut of unreliable amateur sources.

Worse, once reliable news organizations will come to rely on tabloid crap to bring in revenue and serious news will be forgotten. (For a current example of this see CNN: Headline news).


----------



## CanadianCapitalist (Mar 31, 2009)

HaroldCrump said:


> CC, I believe you'll need to click the _cached_ results for this to work.
> Clicking on the link will bounce you off to the subscription page.
> Cache seems to work most of the time for subscription based articles, reports, etc.


At least that's not how it works for WSJ content. Here's an example:

The following link is behind the subscription wall:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703512404576208283482303132.html

Now try searching for the headline "Global Intervention Slows Yen's Rise" on Google and clicking on the search result. You should be able to access the full article.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

One important element of the NY Times decision is that anyone's allowed to read 20 pages per month for free; the site keeps track of how many articles you read and then when you try to read the 21st article of the month you're asked to subscribe.

I don't know if they log your IP address or just track your account login, or both...presumably if they just log your IP address you could get around it by reading 20 articles at home and then another 20 articles at a cafe with WiFi. If they're tracking your account, you could probably set up multiple accounts with different email addresses but they'd probably figure that out.


----------



## CanadianCapitalist (Mar 31, 2009)

brad said:


> As someone who has never intentionally clicked on an online ad, I'm probably one of the reasons the Times has to start charging subscription fees to its regular online readers (of which I am one).
> 
> I ponied up the money for a subscription yesterday with no complaints; it's being opened to subscribers in Canada first before being expanded to the US and the rest of the world later this month.
> 
> What's amazing is not that they've started charging fees, but that they were able to make their content free for so many years.


I don't read the NYT regularly enough to justify paying a subscription. I do see why they were forced to do it. They can't give away content for free forever.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

CanadianCapitalist said:


> I don't read the NYT regularly enough to justify paying a subscription.


It's funny, when I worked in Boston I used to scoff at colleagues who read the NY Times because the Boston Globe wasn't "highbrow" enough for them. I went native and read the Globe. But now I see I've become one of those people I ridiculed -- I read the NY Times every day but only occasionally glance at the Montreal papers or the Globe and Mail. I need to beef up my Canadian content.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

I won't pay a monthly fee, there's too many other free resources out there. PPV maybe a la iTunes if it's cheap enough. I think they need to be a lot more creative though, and I doubt the dinosaurs will figure it out.

I'd pay for something fresh and new that is actually designed with the internet in mind. I don't know.. think twitter/facebook/blogs but more professional. I won't pay $15/month for 1 news paper


----------



## financialnoob (Feb 26, 2011)

CanadianCapitalist said:


> I don't read the NYT regularly enough to justify paying a subscription. I do see why they were forced to do it. They can't give away content for free forever.


Agreed. The internet has really impacted the traditional media sources, and they're still in a period of major transition. During this period, everyone talks about how the info is now free but there's definite costs to accumulate it and report on it and distribute it. I think people think it's always going to be free, but the reality is a lot of newspapers are probably going to go out of business if they keep giving away their content for free.


----------



## the-royal-mail (Dec 11, 2009)

That may be, but keep in mind the Internet has also given rise to some individual journalists with their own websites (chrisd comes to mind) so the effect is we now have many options for getting the info, it's not just confined to journalists from the traditional media outlets.

If they hide all the online news content then I can either start to read other websites with "free" (remember the news sites BLAST users with advertising, so they're not giving anything away as things stand now in any case) content or just go back to watching it on TV like I was doing before. Or there's the newspaper at work etc. My point is there are more options now than ever before.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

ChrisR said it upthread, elegantlly & with a penetrating eye far into the future.

it's not just about newspapers-will-only-survive-if-online-readers-pay.

it's about how those newspapers could morph from what we've always known & prized - expert, talented, bylined reporters out there in the field 24/7, standing on their names & reputations, with all work product submitted to batteries of well-identified fact-verifying editors - some of these could morph into pop swill.

quite possibly only a handful like the ny times could survive with any integrity whatsoever.

nameless, anonymous tweets, facebooks & sites are not checked by anybody. Anything goes. There are no professional standards. Elaborate lies look just as good as movie star trash. What a scary world.

for my part i don't visit the ny times much at all (globe n mail is not a bad runner-upper,) but i feel i owe the venerable times some support just because i'm glad they exist. So i'm thinking to subscribe part of the year.


----------



## financialnoob (Feb 26, 2011)

the-royal-mail said:


> That may be, but keep in mind the Internet has also given rise to some individual journalists with their own websites (chrisd comes to mind) so the effect is we now have many options for getting the info, it's not just confined to journalists from the traditional media outlets.
> 
> If they hide all the online news content then I can either start to read other websites with "free" (remember the news sites BLAST users with advertising, so they're not giving anything away as things stand now in any case) content or just go back to watching it on TV like I was doing before. Or there's the newspaper at work etc. My point is there are more options now than ever before.


I agree, but how things look today isn't how things will look in the future. The industry is still undergoing a major revolution, and how things will look at the end, we don't know.

All content providers are being forced to change their business models on-the-fly. For traditional media, they relied heavily on ad dollars, but advertisers are finding it significantly more cost-effective to use the internet. So now these companies are dealing with significantly less revenue that shrinks every day. That means major changes are coming.

Look at network TV. The cost for prime-time shows is high, but viewership for the top TV shows has decreased, which means ad rates will be affected. Specialty cable channels offer targeted audiences for advertisers (like Golf Channel, Food Network, et cetera). So CBS or NBC finds their revenue decreasing. Can they continue to offer the same type of expensive programming during prime-time? Will we see a switch to more news-type shows which are less expensive to generate? Will quality change? Maybe it leads to a good thing and different types of shows start popping up. 

A lot of newspapers have stopped paying for local writers and instead relied on the AP or other similar news networks. The AP has reported growth in revenues at a time when most newspapers are declining in revenues. But at some point a bunch go out of business, which eventually will impact the AP's revenue. The reliance upon the AP also affects local news, as well as local spin on major news stories.

Individual journalists are probably the way of the future, but again, how they report news will be affected. They need to be paid as well for the work that they do, and the question is how should they be compensated.

A lot is free today and it's great, but it may not always be that way. And I do think there is certainly value in paying for certain types of information or entertainment, even if you can get similar for free elsewhere. It just depends on what it is and how much better it is than the free stuff.


----------



## the-royal-mail (Dec 11, 2009)

I definitely agree that journalists are a critical component in all of this and we don't really know where this will "end"...the answer may not be in the destination but in the journey. Either way the last thing you want to do is lay off content diggers in the information age when millions of people are searching for info via google. I think the answer is in the presentation. Printed newspapers may eventually disappear, which will cause further paper mill closures in smaller communities that depend on those mills as their primary job source for the local economy. That is the unfortunate downside here. And people still like to read a newspaper when they sit down in their favourite coffee hangout, so I dunno. Interesting times for sure.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

We are in a time of transition and those who see the potential of technology will survive. Dinosaurs who laughed at the mouse and PC still laugh at new ideas. I'm sure there's a way for professional news to survive. Mobile computing, cloud computing, and fiber networks will further change the game. I think it's for the better to save all that printed paper.

Maybe there needs to be a way to provide ID online to make it more professional. It would also be handy to get rid of all the troll comments on news stories. I would pay for something revolutionary. What annoys me about the news today is how drawn out it always is (technology induces ADD in us all) give me the facts as quickly and as possible and support it with raw HD video etc. Not as short as twitter though


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

drat. The pie was just minding its own business & reading today's ny times coverage of japan crisis including detailed article about how container & bulk shipping lines will no longer dock at tokyo or yokohama ports because radiation will cause the ships to be partially condemned * ...

... when up popped nice-looking ny times window saying that the pie's 20 free pages/articles were up & it was time to pay 3.75 for one unlimited week.

* the problem is not that the tokyo-docking ships will be contaminated unto death by radiation traces they may show in future readings. The problem is that, for years to come, such ships will have to be quarantined in all ports, sometimes for weeks, in order to be checked by national coast guards for radiation levels. Understandably, shipping lines cannot afford to tie up their ships in every port with these delays & extra docking charges. So they're responding by cutting tokyo/yokohama off as destinations.

* as radiation contamination spreads in japan, the US navy has had to move its own nuclear submarines like the ronald reagan far away from japan. The concern is that fukushima radiation affecting the US subs will disarm their own radiation detection monitoring systems.

* some shipping lines are still docking at osaka & shipping essential food, water & fuel into the ravaged northeast fukushima district by trucked container. The problem is that the shippers will not take these containers back. Truckers must buy the containers & then dump them permanently or destroy them in the northeast region.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

It is ironic that the earthquake can be recovered from. The tsunami will eventally be recovered from. But the violation of the radiation protection seems to have far-reaching effects that we are only just starting to appreciate.

And with that comes a whole new appreciation for what world trade really means! I bet Barnanke is glad this will divert the attention from his wealth-destroying economic policies.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

ok so people always want what they can't/don't have.

in the past i used to visit ny times dot com maybe once a week. Never thought about it. Take it or leave it.

now the ny times shows me its home page, w photos, headlines & leads to articles. To continue, it wants 3.75.

these days i haunt the home page early every am, drooling w lust & desire. Never have articles looked so must-read, so essential, so critical to my life. Is virtual grave-robbing of deceased persons via the internet really happening now ? Markets are opening in 30 seconds but somehow i feel my week cannot begin w out finding out what will happen to my online persona if i expire this day.

so far, crazed w lust & longing though i might be, i haven't succumbed.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

NY Times just updated their iPhone app, and it's pretty good. The most forward leaning news app I have and the content is still free! Apparently it will now send notifications of breaking news, that may be handy if it's only for big news. So far they haven't sent me anything

When I'm stuck waiting somewhere typically the first thing I do is read the news on my iPhone. As I travel it's convenient and saves paper, time etc. So I'll read the NY Times more if only because they have a nice app. At home I have a news feed as a Google sidebar that lists all news sources which I prefer. It alone keeps me up to date as I don't watch tv


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

mode they probbly have just not gotten around to iphone apps yet.

has the caboose flown over the pond already ?


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

You mean they haven't got around to charging for it?

I was just there for a week but haven't moved completely. It was like +25C the entire time..


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

they might spread. They started in canada. We were the trials.

today nytimes dot com went stateside. Must be chaos.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

mode3sour said:


> NY Times just updated their iPhone app, and it's pretty good. The most forward leaning news app I have and the content is still free!


Not entirely true: the app is free, and the Top News section is free. But if you start looking through other sections of the paper using the app, they count toward your 20 pages per month limit and eventually you'll be asked to pay to read them.

So if you're only reading Top News, you can sidestep the NYTimes paywall by reading it on an iPhone app.

One drag is that the iPad app is treated separately, and if you want to read the NY Times on that it'll cost you extra.


----------



## ShowMeTheMoney (Apr 12, 2009)

What bugs me most is my ad-blocker doesn't work on the site anymore. The article doesn't load at all unless I turn the ads back on. I hate those jiggly ads.
Do they go away with a paid subscription?


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

i adore the on-again-off-again ny times effect. For just a few days it showed me a window saying i had to pay. Then all of a sudden it commenced showing me articles again, docile as a little lamb. I suppose any day now i'll use up my allocation for the week & wham the pay subscription window will start up again.

it's like being in a pitch dark theatre while the play goes on unseen. One can hear the actors speaking their lines but one cannot see anything. At random intervals the stage lights come up & one can see the actors. Surprise ! Look, he's really a she ! And that one isn't wearing any clothes at all ! Then wham the lights go down without warning & all is black again.

it's a great way to get the news. Really sharpens the senses. Keeps the reader on his or her toes.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

humble_pie said:


> i adore the on-again-off-again ny times effect. For *just a few days it showed me a window saying i had to pay. *Then all of a sudden it commenced showing me articles again, docile as a little lamb. I suppose any day now i'll use up my allocation for the week & wham the pay subscription window will start up again.


..and pay, should you (Yoda speak)..after all, you are not supporting your
local rag that is biased with either Liberal or Conservative viewpoints in most cases, and
struggling in these days of low ad revenue.



> it's like being in a pitch dark theatre while the play goes on unseen. Surprise ! Look, he's really a she ! And that one isn't wearing any clothes at all ! Then wham the lights go down without warning & all is black again.


'tis the work of the devil I say...repent and stop being enticed by the dark
Lord of the Sith/PULP...and thereby fall into the pit of inequity with much weeping and gnashing of teeth..
subscribe to your local paper, run by his minions, based on sensationalism to the senses, and not
entirely based on truth .



> it's a great way to get the news. Really sharpens the senses. Keeps the reader on his or her toes.


Someday all papers will be on line and circulated copies will cease to exist..
and this isn't that far into the future. I read a book titled "This is the last
book that you will ever read"..and in it the author (Frank Ogden) mentions that is a progression towards that event.

http://www.geni.org/globalenergy/endorsements/individual/ogden-book.shtml

but in terms of frugality..it doesn't make sense...why pay for something
that you could get for free from someone who's already read it?

and..should you recycle it..or pass it on to someone else to read..in the interest of frugality and being green environementally concious.."save a tree"?


----------



## the-royal-mail (Dec 11, 2009)

I just want to send out a note of caution to anyone who may suggest that non-print versions of news is somehow better for the planet than paper. I think this needs some investigation, as the replacements of computers, cell phones and the like are creating an environmental disaster that isn't widely reported. There are millions of cell phones, computers and monitors tossed out every year. Even if they are recycled, the plastics are generally still taking up landfill space. I understand the world is going to a virtual medium, but the environmental impact of this is anything but green.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

shazzaaam they are about to plunge me into darkness again.

this time they've got a cute little warning message. Pops up, bows & squeaks that i've got only 2 articles left.

i read the US is shipping world's tallest 2 cranes to fukushima. 100% robot operated, they will join 2 others sent by germany & china.

all 4 can pump cement, says the article. So the purpose is fairly clear.

the problem is that they can't seal fukushima underneath a lake full of concrete yet, because there's too much water in the bottom of the buildings, tunnels, etc. The concrete won't be able to set. 

but meanwhile they have to cool the reactors, so they'll keep on pumping water, which will keep on blowing off radioactive steam & leaking pools of radioactive liquid into the ground & ocean, for many more months shazzaaam in fact quite likely several more shazzaaam years.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

the-royal-mail said:


> *I just want to send out a note of caution to anyone who may suggest that non-print versions of news is somehow better for the planet than paper*. I think this needs some investigation, as the replacements of computers, cell phones and the like are creating an environmental disaster that isn't widely reported. There are millions of cell phones, computers and monitors tossed out every year. Even if they are recycled, the plastics are generally still taking up landfill space. I understand the world is going to a virtual medium, but the environmental impact of this is anything but green.


Is this intended for me..TRM? 
Well my days are numbered on this planet, so I may not be around when this type of industrial-electronic revolution takes place...
and it somehow reminds me of the John Lennon song.."Do you (we) want a revolution?..oh yeh..oh yeh" 

I agree that technology and its obsolence factor leads to a lot of junk that is discarded on this planet, and not all of it can be crushed up and recycled..unfortunately....
but compared to the "graveyards of old rusted automobiles"..(another song by Arlo Guthrie "Good Morning America"), these types of discards take up far less space than some of man's other "great inventions"..and don't forget we got the great white north..a great vastland that can also be turned into a wasteland..not just for spent nuclear fuel but for other things as well..and if Harper
gets back in and builds these "superjails" he's talking about, he should build them up there, so the cons serving life sentences
can process the millions upon millions of tons of high tech garbage we can ship to them...what a plan!

*Well folks, like it or not, the newspapers will all be electronic by the mid point of this century (if not sooner). * 

I remember my days working at the Globe & Mail in the mid 70s in the newspaper's computerized data base and the electronic 
type setters that took the text, H & J'd it, and laser etched plates for the old letter press..a relic from the 50s that they were still using. The pressman and their union always kept us on our tip toes as to not aggravate them and cause a strike..and there were a couple few when I was there. Gone where the typesetters..who had worked there for years..didn't need them anymore..as type
was now set by computers and computerized typesetters that could do the job much faster and insert pictures (pixels) at
the same time! 

Big rolls of newsprint (yes it is recyclable, but the cost of de-inking it makes it a very expensive recycling business and then the huge storage rooms to store it at the correct humidty..delivery from the mills, the mills and factories..all those trees..then delivery
of the finished paper to the various distribution points..trucks/fuel/driver costs , management of newpaper boxes etc etc etc..a VERY EXPENSIVE WAY to get the news to the reader in this day and age. 

It got so expensive to deliver the finished product to distant cities like Montreal/Ottawa/Kitchener/Vancouver/Calgary etc, 
that the G&M set up satellite transmission of the text to distant local papers (that still had some capacity with small printing presses for their own local papers..like Le Droit..a french language newspaper in Ottawa. All the local paper had to do was
to take the plates off the G+M typesetter and print the paper locally. This was in 1980, when I quit G+M an came to work 
for Nortel. Most of the little papers have now disappeared or amalgamated and most don't have the eqt to print papers such
as the G&M anymore, which requires special sizing. 

As costs rise, production and fuel costs will negate any kind of profit still available on newsprint paper, so it's only a matter of time until all the big papers in NA go electronic. Yes, us old dinosaurs still like to go out and drop a looney..no wait..it's a tooney now and get a Saturday paper, but soon these will also be disappearing from the landscape as well.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

humble_pie said:


> i read the US is shipping world's tallest 2 cranes to fukushima. 100% robot operated, they will join 2 others sent by germany & china.
> 
> the problem is that they can't seal fukushima underneath a lake full of concrete yet, because there's too much water in the bottom of the buildings, tunnels, etc. The concrete won't be able to set.


Another environmental disaster in the making..but what does this have to
do with electronic newspaper distribution??????


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

Some of my friends have caved and signed up for NY Times. I can't justify paying that much for 1 online source

So I was thinking, if there was a site with a monthly subscription that gave you access to many quality sources, I would pay for that. Of course there would be surcharges for extra content, and they could distribute the revenue based on clicks. Kind of like TV, you pay for a package of channels

If I start paying $3.75/week/source that adds up and I only read a few articles from each


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

the-royal-mail said:


> I just want to send out a note of caution to anyone who may suggest that non-print versions of news is somehow better for the planet than paper. I think this needs some investigation, as the replacements of computers, cell phones and the like are creating an environmental disaster that isn't widely reported. There are millions of cell phones, computers and monitors tossed out every year. Even if they are recycled, the plastics are generally still taking up landfill space. I understand the world is going to a virtual medium, but the environmental impact of this is anything but green.


I'm not sure how you can argue that the non-print version isn't better. Assuming that you're not buying a computer, cell, tablet, technology solely for the purpose of reading newspapers, then an electronic version is much better than the paper in terms of environment. 

The environmental impact is much higher to print the newspaper, distribute it, and recycle it (if someone does do that), than it is to read it on line. When comparing the impacts of the two of the direct causes, the on line version has the added impact of the electricity when you turn on your computer and the impact of the person responsible for publishing the article on line. Whereas, in the hard print, you have the impact of getting the paper (cutting down trees, the transportation of them, etc), the ink, the type sets, etc, then the printing itself and the resources involved, then the distribution of driving the physical newspapers to the delivery spots.

The issue you describe of the technology pollution is a much bigger issue. That is not caused by newspapers going on line. That's caused by consumerism, etc.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

both sides have perfect merit imho.

saving trees & saving the costs of de-inking & recycling paper are popular, fashionable, well-implanted ideas.

royal mail has long upheld efforts to control e-waste by limiting consumption & by supporting specialized e-waste processing facilities. In that sense he is a prophetic pioneer, because e-waste is indeed out of control right now, while nobody much is yet speaking to the issue.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

Plugging Along said:


> I'm not sure how you can argue that the non-print version isn't better. Assuming that you're not buying a computer, cell, tablet, technology solely for the purpose of reading newspapers, then an electronic version is much better than the paper in terms of environment.


It's actually a pretty complicated assessment, and the "greenest" option depends on your environmental priorities (i.e., resource conservation, greenhouse gas emissions, waste, etc.).

From a waste perspective, source reduction (i.e., avoiding the need to produce paper and print newspapers) is the environmentally preferable way to go -- it trumps recycling, composting, and everything else. 

But if you're concerned about greenhouse gases, when you consider all of the energy it takes to produce and distribute computers, plus the energy required to run the servers that provide your content, and the end-of-life disposal and recycling issues, the picture is not so clear.

For example I recently ordered an iPad 2 and a few gizmos to go with it (cover, cable to connect to a monitor, etc.), and everything's arriving in separate packages. The cable was manufactured in China, shipped from there to California, and then FedEx took it from California to Memphis Tennessee, where it then flew to Calgary Alberta, went back to Memphis because the paperwork hadn't been filled out correctly, then went from Memphis back to Calgary, and from Calgary to Montreal, where it then boarded a FedEx van that dropped it off at my house this morning. The energy embodied in that one little cable alone is probably equivalent to the carbon stored annually by many trees.

For newsprint, there are significant energy costs as well but many pulp mills generate their own energy using wood waste, so the net greenhouse gas emissions are smaller than you'd expect. But paper recycling requires energy and often requires bleach and other chemicals to remove the ink...there are impacts no matter how you look at it.


----------



## the-royal-mail (Dec 11, 2009)

Hi all. It may have seemed that way, but I didn't intend for my comments to attack carver. It was just that a comment he made sort of got me thinking, that eliminating print in favour of electronic may not be the green solution many people think on the surface. I appreciate the comments by pie and brad. Brad summed it up well I think. The trouble right now is consumers look at their cell phone in isolation, ignoring all environmental impact, while looking at a newspaper and considering the environmental impact of it. That gives a skewed perception. Again, brad summed it up nicely but I would mention:

-impact of job losses in pulp-paper industry (think of all the paper mill towns that will lose their primary employer and all the wealth that comes to the town as a result)
-impact of strengthening the need for consumers to buy and upgrade their cell phones and computers to keep up with ever-increasing technology demands to drive newspapers on computers
-consider the situation brad described with his cable. Now extend that to every component of the reader device.
-how about disposal? A newspaper goes to another reader and then to the recycle bin. A cell phone cannot be as easily recycled and to break it down after use is complicated, time consuming and expensive.
-not to mention the radiation
-ever increasing costs of bandwidth and technology cost to the consumer to keep upgrading our devices, all of this has an impact given the short life of these plastics and boards.

I personally prefer to read the newspaper, if for no other reason that I know it can be fully recycled afterwards.

And I'm by no means trying to say that I'm right. I just intend this for discussion and to cause people to think about the impact of their seemingly-benign electronic actions.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

I guess I am doing my part by using a laptop I bought off craiglist for half price in 2003 (it was 6 months old - HP Pavillion DV5000 with 4 MB RAM and 100GB for $600). Not much waste here! I keep it going with WD USB drives for music, photos and downloaded videos.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Plugging Along said:


> The environmental impact is much higher to print the newspaper, distribute it, and recycle it (if someone does do that), than it is to read it on line. When comparing the impacts of the two of the direct causes, the on line version has the added impact of the electricity when you turn on your computer and the impact of the person responsible for publishing the article on line. Whereas, in the hard print, you have the impact of getting the paper (cutting down trees, the transportation of them, etc), the ink, the type sets, etc, then the printing itself and the resources involved, then the distribution of driving the physical newspapers to the delivery spots.


uH??? I already mentioned that..are you parotting me???
I used to work in the newspaper business, so I'm quite aware of printing and distribution costs.

As far as the computer using electricity.. about the weakest argument I've heard so far on environmental impact . 
The guy that gathers the story and publishes online gets well paid for doing that..computers impacting society..
well yes they are, , but not when it comes to electricity consumption...it's the data usage charges that have far more significant impact on the consumers pocket book in the next few years, not just paying for reading the paper online..and everyone wants a piece of the action..from the NY Times, to RIM and Apple..4G networks now, 5G in the next 5 years...electronic
tablets that are designed for scrolling and reading a newpaper the way you like to read it..
and guess what..more trees will be saved, gbsorting carbon dioxide (koff! koff!) and producing oxygen
for the environment..and everyone should be happy ever after. 


(quote)
The issue you describe of the technology pollution is a much bigger issue. That is not caused by newspapers going on line. That's caused by consumerism, etc.[/QUOTE]

Yes, consumerism and the easy access to portable information and there
is no end in sight..Telcos and ISPs are scrambling to install infrastructure
to cash in the future as technology creates the demand for newer and better
widgets...like the laptop being replaced by a super tablet.

Do we need these super tablets in our daily lives..no.
Do we want these latest creations of technology..yes.

Disposal pollution is on the backburner..the ONT gov ECO fee is supposed
to aid in recycling electronic devices..but we all remember the Hagersville
mountain-o-tire fire a few years ago..while the NDP govt under Bob Rae
collected $5 per tire and pocketed it or wasted it on other things. After the
tire fire, they quietly removed the tire tax..now its back on again..another
cash cow for the McGinty govt.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

kcowan said:


> I guess I am doing my part by using a laptop I bought off craiglist for half price in 2003 (it was 6 months old - HP Pavillion DV5000 with 4 MB RAM and 100GB for $600). Not much waste here! I keep it going with WD USB drives for music, photos and downloaded videos.


4MB of Ram..how can your run anything on 4mB of ram..you must mean 4GB of ram. 
But I see your frugality comes into play here. 

I also have an old boat anchor desktop, but after a few Blue screens of death and sometimes it doesnt come up from reboot..
I also bought a 1 TB WD USB external drive to save all my data. So if the boat anchor or 80GB hard disk
crashes..I can go to my local Costco and look for a newer laptop..(if its on sale.), but I hesitate buying a used one,
because sometimes you dont know the reason its being sold on those kinds of online forsale sites.

Product of a home invasion..or is there something fundamentally wrong with it.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

the-royal-mail said:


> -impact of job losses in pulp-paper industry (think of all the paper mill towns that will lose their primary employer and all the wealth that comes to the town as a result)
> (quote)
> 
> 
> ...


Someone once quoted: If you are not part of the solution then you have to
part of the problem. (pollution)


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

brad said:


> But if you're concerned about greenhouse gases, when you consider all of the energy it takes to produce and distribute computers, plus the energy required to run the servers that provide your content, and the end-of-life disposal and recycling issues, the picture is not so clear.
> (quote)
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

carverman said:


> As far as the computer using electricity.. about the weakest argument I've heard so far on environmental impact.


An individual computer doesn't use much (maybe $20-$40 worth per year of electricity), but as they say, "in numbers there is strength." Have a look at the appliance/electronics growth in this graph released last week for the US by the Energy Information Administration:










Consider the energy use associated with generating and receiving one spam message -- infinitessimal. But multiply that by all the spam messages sent every day worldwide and you have a huge impact on energy:

"Globally, annual spam energy use totals 33 billion kilowatt-hours (kWh), or 33 terawatt hours (TWh). That’s equivalent to the electricity used in 2.4 million homes, with the same greenhouse gas emissions as 3.1 million passenger cars using two billion U.S. gallons of gasoline."

That's a quote from this report: http://www.sustaincommworld.com/pdfs/Email_Carbon_Footprint_Report.pdf.


----------



## the-royal-mail (Dec 11, 2009)

That's exactly right brad. If we're going to talk about trees, logs, trucking products when it comes to newsprint, we have to apply the same metrics to the existence of the device on which the newspaper is read. That means ALL of the hidden activities related to the ability of a user to read the paper on an electronic device, cradle to grave. It might surprise you when you add it up that there's nothing green about reading news online.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

lol what should we do royal. Go back to beating tom-toms ? the bush telegraph ?


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

the-royal-mail said:


> It might surprise you when you add it up that there's nothing green about reading news online.


Well, I still wouldn't be surprised if on the whole it's greener to read news online than to buy a newspaper, but I haven't seen a complete cradle-to-grave study comparing the two -- there might be studies out there, I just haven't looked. All I'm saying is that it's not an easy comparison to make.

Personally I read my news online because it's simpler for me and there's nothing to throw out or recycle. I read only the articles I want to read instead of buying an entire newspaper only to read 1/100th of its content. It feels less wasteful to me, even if I'm not sure whether I'm doing the environment any favours. And my computer does many jobs besides serving me the news...the newspaper pretty much does one job, although as some wag quipped in the 1940s (when asked about the difference between newspapers and radio), you can wrap a herring in a newspaper.


----------



## the-royal-mail (Dec 11, 2009)

Not at all pie. I realize we have to progress. I just want to pre-empt anyone who may try to use the green aspect to promote paperless news. But at the same time as a species, if we're concerned about the state of our planet these are the things that add up that could make a big difference if we all paid attention and asked the hard questions, and guide ourselves accordingly. For instance, like kccowan, my computer is old. But it has all of the tools I need. I've upgraded various components as I've needed them. It's amazing how much e-waste you can pre-empt by saying 'no' to most upgrades of most electronics and plastics these days. At least use the stuff until it breaks or physically wears out/becomes unusable. That makes a difference right there. etc.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

brad said:


> An individual computer doesn't use much (maybe $20-$40 worth per year of electricity), but as they say, "in numbers there is strength."


Absolutely true Brad. As each new generation starts nesting, requiring housing, appliance and computer usage steadily increases each year. 













> Consider the energy use associated with generating and receiving one spam message -- infinitessimal. But multiply that by all the spam messages sent every day worldwide and you have a huge impact on energy:


Well ok, you have a point..but the spam isn't the only thing these days that has a bearing on energy consumption...just wait till Chevy introduces the VOLT on the car market, and people start flocking in droves to buy these..because of steadily rising oil
prices..but...oh oh!..the provincial grid/TOU and recharging costs (even at night) + A/C usage, and more energy consumption over all..we are going to hit the wall at some point as far as generating capacity...even those spam messages
will be insignificant by comparison. 

If oil keeps rising..there will be some *major changes in the economy*..not just affecting use of electricity but pretty much everything that is based on an oil economy..not to mention triggering another recession!




> "Globally, annual spam energy use totals 33 billion kilowatt-hours (kWh), or 33 terawatt hours (TWh). That’s equivalent to the electricity used in 2.4 million homes, with the same greenhouse gas emissions as 3.1 million passenger cars using two billion U.S. gallons of gasoline."


well I don't care how much energy spam uses in China or India..I'm more concerned on how it affects my bottom line..the actual money I have to pay out to Ottawa Hydro.... and Mr. McGinty, and the OEB .....and the "fat cat" green power generators..
everything thing else happening in the globe is irrelevant to me..but there is nothing I can do (frugally speaking) to change things.



> That's a quote from this report: http://www.sustaincommworld.com/pdfs/Email_Carbon_Footprint_Report.pdf.


Speaking of carbon footprint..how about Mr. Harper. Mr "Iggy" and Mr. Layton flying around in these leased jets from coast to coast*...releasing around 450 metric tons of carbon into the atmosphere*! 

Obviously our politicians are more involved with infighting, attacking each other, and making hollow promises that they won't be able to keep once elected..rather than be concerned about how much pollution ( and not just the hot air they release)...
but carbon released from all this flying around..because they just can't get along in parliament....spam..spam..
and ,more spam..and this one (election)costs us plenty!


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

the-royal-mail said:


> That's exactly right brad. If we're going to talk about trees, logs, trucking products when it comes to newsprint, we have to apply the same metrics to the existence of the device on which the newspaper is read. That means ALL of the hidden activities related to the ability of a user to read the paper on an electronic device, cradle to grave. It might surprise you when you add it up *that there's nothing green about reading news online*.


It may not be green in the sense , like you thumbing through the pages of a physical newsprint paper
(that you may have actually spent a "Toonie" on), and then toss it into the black bin..
or
use it to clean fish.. catch grease/oil/paint..etc..

but you have to admit..it IS convenient..and you don't get your fingertips dirty from the greasy ink.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

humble_pie said:


> lol what should we do royal. Go back to beating tom-toms ? the bush telegraph ?


Well if oil prices keep rising (and they will due to dwindling oil reserves
and gulf drilling disasters..we proably should go back to horse and buggies
too...and you know..that's not such a bad idea..the farmers can sell us hay,
we can use the manure to fertilize our veggie gardens..and stop all this
Ecoli and nuclear contamination from infiltrating our veggies..old Dobbin
can be recycled completely..meat, horsehair, (for mattresses and violin bows),
even the horse shoes can be used for horse shoe toss..nothing is wasted
and no carbon footprint..except for the odd Horse Fart. 
and wait..there's more...
if we keep the horse inside the garage, we can even recycle the body
heat from it into our homes and cut down on emergy costs.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

carverman said:


> we proably should go back to horse and buggies
> too...and you know..that's not such a bad idea..the farmers can sell us hay,
> we can use the manure to fertilize our veggie gardens..and stop all this
> Ecoli and nuclear contamination from infiltrating our veggies..


Hah, but the big fly in the ointment here is population growth. Horses were sustainable for transportation in the 1800s and early 1900s, but with today's population you'd have to clear out a very large portion of the remaining forests to grow enough food for all those animals.


----------



## the-royal-mail (Dec 11, 2009)

carverman said:


> ...but you have to admit..it IS convenient..and you don't get your fingertips dirty from the greasy ink.


Of course. Without a doubt. And remember I read news online (but also newspapers). I'm just trying to get people thinking that just because they are sitting alone with a cell phone in their hand, they're NOT being kind to the environment just because no newsprint was used to deliver the news they are reading online. Computers and cell phones are one of the biggest environmental disasters of our time. I would choose logging anyday over all the leaked mercury, improperly disposed plastic and harmful radiation and ewaste caused by electronics.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

brad said:


> Hah, but the big fly in the ointment here is population growth. Horses were sustainable for transportation in the 1800s and early 1900s, but with today's population you'd have to clear out a very large portion of the remaining forests to grow enough food for all those animals.


Well it was supposed to be "tonge-in-cheek" humour, Brad.

I guess I forgot to add a smily icon..next time I will..

but...lets face it, it's not the availabilty of farmland that was once there..but the fact that for the last
50 years, we have been building and paving over some of the best farmland in Ontario!

I don't know much about the rest of the country..but the farms are dwindling in size and numbers as farmers realize that it's just too expensive to make a go of it these days. Why not sell out to the land developers?... and just live in fancy condos from the tax free cash one can get for a sizeable acre-age. 

A few years ago (ok in the mid 60s) I used to drive past Woodroffe here in Ottawa and once you got to Bells Corners..why it was open country as far as the eye could see... farmland and farmers actually still working the fields!

Now all I see is 4 lane streets from Bells Corners to Stittsville, heavy traffic congestion, gas stations and every available piece
of land now has either housing or shopping centers. Yes there are still the odd barn or farmhouse, but these are basically empty now.

Now here is the sad truth about paving over farmland (as the Joni Mitchell song goes "they paved paradise and put up a parking lot".... we are going to pay dearly for this in the future!

Because our economy and that of other nations depends so much on oil these days, that once we get into triple digit prices per bbl, major changes are going to take place everywhere. That guzzler that once cost $100 to fill up will cost $150 or more,
'thanks to McGinty and his HST cash cow on gasoline and other energy, and of course gouging by BIG OIL because they got us
over a barrel..LITERALLy!

It will become more and more expensive to import fruit and veggies from Mexico, and other places and just like coffee.
Prices will skyrocket because of transportation costs and inflation.

So what is the solution? ..grow the fruit and veggies here..like we used to in the 50's to 80's..oh but wait.!
Niagara and southern Ontario.... the finest growing land in Ontario is getting built up very fast!
the fruit farms are getting displaced by housing and shopping centers..


can you hear that giant sucking sound folks? you will need more of those
after tax dollars to pay for your food/housing/energy and "old Dobbin's "
gas tank!


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

the-royal-mail said:


> Of course. Without a doubt. And remember I read news online (but also newspapers). I'm just trying to get people thinking that just because they are sitting alone with a cell phone in their hand, they're NOT being kind to the environment just because no newsprint was used to deliver the news they are reading online. Computers and cell phones are one of the biggest environmental disasters of our time. I would choose logging anyday over all the leaked mercury, improperly disposed plastic and harmful radiation and ewaste caused by electronics.


Well TRM..."dinosaurs 'R" us..I tend to agree with you on many points..and don't forget I actually worked for 5 yrs at the G&M, so I (did) know the the technical side of newspaper production..but the fact remains, that as much as we hate to let go of the past..technology and the state of the economy will force us to adapt to newer ways of reading the news and other information
gathering. 

Yes, cell phones have their advantages..they are portable and you can take your personal number with you anywhere in the world these days (at least the ones that can adapt to the different transmissions standards such as GSM etc)..but with this technology, it drives changes in society and behaviour.... the way we behave as humans.

I ride the bus sometimes (to save on gas), and so many times I hear cell phones going off and people talking on them as IF they were the only ones on the bus! Or in movie theatres! And look at all these school kids walking around with cellphones "strapped" to their ears, yaking away on their family plans with unlimited local friends and family calling....

Newpapers..yes they are still around, but based on costs (oil, newsprint and production/distribution..they are going the way of "old Dobbin".. especially as the advertising revenue dries up even more.

That $1 or $2 you pay for the newspaper these days, doesn't begin to pay for the full cost of salaries, printing and delivery of that paper to the newspaper box (or your door if you subscribe)...and that will force change..as early as in the next 10 years, 
certainly by mid century..newspapers will become things of the past like desktop computers ...and who knows..even these iPads (maybe)..


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

I bet people have paid more more news paper alone during the span of time I used my iPhone, which I bought used, and I'm about to sell it used. It replaced 100's more books and cd's and devices than just news paper

Again consumerist mentality and marketing is the problem, not the technology. I use about 2 computers and 2 cell phones per decade, and hand them down to someone else. That's really not unreasonable especially if you buy ones that were built to last. Maybe we should switch to paper plates and cups to stop dumping cleaning chemicals in the water?


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

mode3sour said:


> I bet people have paid more more news paper alone during the span of time I used my iPhone, which I bought used, and I'm about to sell it used. It replaced 100's more books and cd's and devices than just news paper


and..electronic publishing is here to stay..just read somewhere that future
Harry potter "books" will be written and published electronically by JK Rowling..so I guess, 
she has finally tossed out the old IBM Selectric typewriter as well. 



> That's really not unreasonable especially if you buy ones that were built to last. Maybe we should switch to paper plates and cups to stop dumping cleaning chemicals in the water?


The meaning of "built to last" is slowly fading away as each new generation buys new gadgets that are only made to last as long as the "media" that these things use is still available...does anyone remember vinyl being repladed by 8 track tapes. being replaced by cassettes, being replaced by CDs? 

Or Betamax (Sony) video tape recorders being superceded by VHS tape recorders being replaced by digital recorders?

Everything these days has a finite life..even the new cell phones..once the lithium ion battery needs replacement..the cost of the new battery will supercede the cost of replacing the entire cell phone..not to mention 3G phones are now service provider giveaways and 4G is the latest..soon to
be replaced by 5G (still in the works)..and after that..everything and the kitchen sink on that tiny "Dick Tracy wrist radio"..(remember those comics in the 50s?)..it seemed so futuristic then....now..it's almost a given.

Paper plates + cups need to be recycled properly. With the plastic coating on them they are not 100% paper..but still
better than those styrofoam cups that used to pollute every corner and ditch!


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

carverman said:


> and..electronic publishing is here to stay..just read somewhere that future
> Harry potter "books" will be written and published electronically by JK Rowling..so I guess,
> she has finally tossed out the old IBM Selectric typewriter as well.


e-books are also ushering in a new era of self-publishing. I know some guys in Chicago who self-published an e-book and made it available for downloading from their website; they've earned about $75,000 already now from online sales and it cost them next to nothing to produce (no printing costs, no distribution costs).

In fact one reason I ordered an iPad for myself is that I'm starting to learn how to format e-books and am planning to develop this as a skill I can use in retirement to bring in some extra money -- not just writing my own e-books but editing, formatting, and prepping the e-books of other authors.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

brad said:


> e-books are also ushering in a new era of self-publishing. I know some guys in Chicago who self-published an e-book and made it available for downloading from their website; they've earned about $75,000 already now from online sales and it cost them next to nothing to produce (no printing costs, no distribution costs).



Yes this is the way it's evolving, Brad. Technology drives change..and change brings on new methods of doing thing in our everyday and business lives. 

Years ago there was no such thing as the WWW. Now, it's here and you can do pretty much anything, and get anything you want on the WWW.
From Skyping to banking to e-publishing to politics...there is no boundaries yet that define what it cannot do...but like everything else it has it's drawbacks and has to be used with common sense. With any medium that is accessible to everyone,
it invites lurkers, scammers and "white collar" crime as well..and unfortunately that is the dark side of it...more dangerous than
the door to door peddlers we used to have. 

I remember years ago, the first Apple home computer and the fuss that was made about it...now you can get more power than those first Apples in a small microchip! ...(and faster too! ). Look at the new cars..engine management, car body management, and now safety management (collision avoidance systems in some of the latest models) run by computers and digital technology..it just keeps evolving...and getting more complex every year.

The current technological trend is replacing the larger more cumbersome laptops with the new Ipads..and now Apple has come out with the next generation Ipad..more compact and more features.

Newspapers are like the first Apple computers..quite expensive to produce and limited use/applications of it. 
We are becoming a disposable society, but only because technology forces us to do so.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

Seems like the Times' experiment is paying off: they announced today that they have 100,000 digital subscribers so far, which translates to a minimum of $18 million.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

rather guiltily, i have to admit that i have yet to offer the ny times a single penny.

that's because it's way too much fun to "read" the ny times as a non-paying unwashed member of the hoi polloi.

the 20-free-articles-per-month-after-that-reader-pays-or-is-blocked software doesn't seem to work properly. One can be blocked for perhaps 3-10 days; and then suddenly everything reappears, even though it's still early in what were supposed to be 25 unbroken days of darkness. This on-again-off-again pattern is erratic. The overall result is that one can read unlimited full articles at least 2/3 of the time, in staggered episodes.

the effect is zany, syncopated, post-modern, a bit like progressive jazz or frank gehry architecture. Never have i liked the venerable ny times so much. It's as if a familiar old sofa cushion has suddenly morphed into a shiny roulette wheel, with the ball settling on news when you're lucky.


----------

