Cost per issue is an objective measure. Cost per unit value ("actual news and analysis") is a subjective measure. While I personally agree with you, I feel objective data makes a better answer to the question of publication funding.
The Economist sells 1.5 million issues per week. Their subscriptions number over 1 million. Their subscriptions are growing almost 50% per year. They also charge more than most weekly magazines.
the reader is the product.
That is not always true. There are still journalists who write for publications for which the reader is the customer.
Yes, but good journalists cost money and most people have stopped wanting to pay for journalism. That said, there are still some publications out there that have a healthy body of paid readership willing to find actual non-sensational journalism.
You're forced to buy car (liability) insurance if you drive.
In Washington State, and likely other states, you are not forced to buy car insurance if you drive. You may instead buy a liability bond or obtain a certificate of deposit to prove you could pay any liability claims yourself. There are advantages and disadvantages to all the options, but the choices are there.
With the amount of potential information mining that could be done with these apps, I'm surprised they aren't all cross-platform.
NSA is cross-platform and very easy to use. You don't even need to sign up for it. Come free with every phone call.
It does not come free with every phone call; we're playing for it.
No of course not, but if I were in the market for a loan from a bank, having him do that would be well-worth the long term loan-costs he could save me.
I would hand the letter to my lawyer, who would then work with credit bureaus to clean up fraudulent activity on my credit report.
It's a pretty weak citation to say a state requires it, when you can't even be bothered to look if they require it.
What you stated is that in Alaska, one may be refused emergency care if one does not provide a social security number. That is a pretty strong statement and requires a more rigorous citation than "Alaska law requires it". I'm not an expert in searching statutes, but I could find no such statute.
Not too many Python programmers use an IDE, though.
More traffic leading to more damage does *not* mean that no traffic means no damage. Leave a highly-trafficed road un-maintained for 5 years and compare it to an un-drive road that is un-maintained for 5 years.
Since apparently there is no downside to raising the minimum wage some, why not raise it a bunch?
That does not logically follow.
If some is good, more is better, and much more is much more better, right?
No.
Why not a minimum wage of $500/hr, and make almost everyone rich? (Except for the people who are already pulling in a megabuck per year.)
Because that's not how it works?
Noticing a difference is good. Drawing a causal relationship without actual data, not so much.
Because roads still need to be maintained no matter what's driving on them. Those costs won't change.
Um, the type of traffic being carried by and the maintenance cost of roads are *not* independent. The more and the heavier the vehicles on the road, the more damage caused, the higher the cost of maintenance.
You're better off increasing the gas tax itself which then hurts less efficient (and presumably heavier) vehicles while reducing the impact on more fuel efficient (and lighter) vehicles.
Less fuel efficient vehicles need not be heavier and more fuel efficient vehicles need not be lighter. I recently retired my old car for a newer car and the newer car is twice as efficient and twice as heavy.
I didn't say it was or wasn't marketing. I was merely pointing out that government assistance helped. If we count government assistance as marketing then we start diluting the term. Are unemployed people very, very good marketers too, if they receive unemployment checks?
Neutrinos have bad breadth.
