Click on some of the links here, then read the articles. Seems to be about 50/50.

They are related, but different. I get all the information from a headline when the story has very little news to offer. Visiting Google News, some examples from the first page, and my reactions in parens:

• Fewer Americans think Obama has advanced race relations, poll shows (fluff)
• ATTACK ON FLIGHT 253 Accountability sought at terror hearings (more finger-pointing rather that addressing the real issue)
• Photos Purport to Show Woods at Rehab Center (celebrity fluff)
• Football legend Archie Griffin raising awareness of H1N1 vaccinations (celebrity fluff)
• More Men Marrying Wealthier Women (good for them)
• Palin and McCain will campaign again (and I don't give a pair of fetid dingo's kidneys until 2012. wtf are we doing reporting on presidential elections this year?)
• Jets-Colts Preview (sports, and not even "what happened" but a bunch of speculative fluff)
• Americans See Economic Recovery a Long Way Off (Captain Obvious is alive and well on staff at Gallup)

Essentially, I get all the information from the headline when the article is shit, and I read further when the headline suggests a possibility of worthwhile content. I was actually surprised and somewhat more hopeful at how many articles I clicked on while compiling the list above because they seemed possibly interesting.

Then there are inaccurate and misleading headlines. I don't know who is responsible, but a link on Google News for "Michelle Obama Unveils Anti-Obesity Initiative" links to a story called "Michelle Obama's Anti-Obesity Plan," and the article itself says she "is expected to unveil an anti-obesity initiative next month." Another article, entitled "First lady surprises White House visitors," is simply linked to a video of her shaking hands with people on the White House tour. WTF is this doing on the first page of Google News?

A huge portion of newspaper articles (though not as large as the portion of television news segments) are fluff, not worth reading. If you can get all the information you need from the headline, maybe the article wasn't much worth writing anyways.

Maybe if newspapers were to write more articles exposing the horrendous fustercluckery going on locally and abroad, making meaningful commentary on artistic endeavors, giving relevant information on local events, etc. rather than living off press releases, whitewashed statements from politicians, and reprinting AP/Reuters feeds, people might be more inclined to read them.

Hell, one somewhat respected (though less so lately) newspaper in my area reserves the back page of its front section for photographs of its readers holding up a copy of their paper while on vacation. Every day.

The very fact that The Family Circus is still in print is a testament to the utter incompetence and out-of-touchery of newspapers.

You, sir/madam, are what is called an idealist.

For user convenience, vehicles will be fitted with a special button to post "My Kia broke down again, FML" to the user's facebook account.

If they don't want to perform live, they can find themselves another business model.

I think it's perfectly acceptable for a listener to not pay for digital music, and I also think it's perfectly acceptable for an artist to insist that a listener pay for digital music. I don't see the need for a "default" manner of doing things. Some may release things for free, others may insist on being paid for them. It should be up to the parties involved to decide which course of action might benefit them the most, and let the market decide which works. And yeah, much of the market has decided either "it's too expensive" or "screw you." A shrewd businessman at this point would lower the price, make their product more appealing to pay for, and/or not rely on recorded music as a significant income source.

As for other business models, the artist could sell t-shirts, do commissions, partner with other artists in various fields, etc. As a performer and composer of music that often finds itself in the general realm of classical, as well as in other genres that don't have a huge following or production mechanism, I need to be darn creative to have any hope of making a living, especially if I don't want to be tied to every whim of a big label, which would presume that the type of stuff I write is mass-marketable (doubtful). A person who insists on writing music that is not performed live does so with the realization that they have cut themselves off from the benefits that come with performing live music.

Heck, look at the internet! A huge portion of websites do not make money by people directly paying for what they do. I don't pay to read webcomics or Strongbad emails. However, I may buy a t-shirt of my favorite comic strip (of which I have purchased several as gifts over the past few years) or a Trogdor bumper sticker, or I may click on an advertisement on the site. The comic writers are not crying foul about people reading their strips for free.

There's a place in Waimea on the Big Island that makes me drool just thinking about it.

I highly doubt the master tapes still exist. If they do, they exist in some movie studio employee's secret basement, safely hidden from the wrath of Lucas.

I forget... do those come before or after the airing of grievances?

Doesn't matter if most aren't kids, nor whose benefit it's for, when little Billy fetches the family chainsaw to fend off what he thought was the REAL Zompocalypse.

I think perhaps he's watched too much Austin Powers, or not enough...

Now if he offered 100 BILLION dollars, he might get some takers.

If it's anything like previous versions of Moxi, I'd just as soon not watch television.

I've been doing this for years... great system. The one problem I've run into is when a site changes names or is bought out (e.g. Chase now owns WaMu). I then have to either change my password or try to remember how the history of mergers and acquisitions went down.

I think the fact that it is somehow culturally acceptable to be out and about when you're sick probably causes an order of magnitude more infections of the flu than any vaccine could hope to prevent. Someone showing up to class or work with sniffles and a cough (that aren't caused by seasonal allergies) is equivalent to them saying "I'm probably going to make half of you miserable for the better part of the next week, but I really don't give a crap!"

My favorite is when someone declares, "It's OK, I'm not contagious." Because the person who's showing up to remedial math class with boogers the size of golf balls is surely an expert on such things.

In addition to quarantining myself from the general population as much as possible surrounding an illness, I also have taken on good practices to prevent catching things, and to prevent spreading anything I may be carrying... washing my hands thoroughly with soap, especially before eating; coughing and sneezing into my sleeve rather than into my hands; touching food with my right hand and touching anything a lot of other people touch (paper towel dispensers, door handles, faucets, railings, etc.) with my left (it's difficult to be 100% on that one, but at the very least it can provide a non-contaminated path from the restroom to the lunch room).

Worse yet is when the pedestrians set up a tripline with the leash attached to their bichon frise!

Running multiple short sprints is a very effective way to exercise, likely more so than static running over the same period of time if you're looking to optimize results (and we know how keen Slashdotters are on optimization). Shame people tend to overlook it.