will talk about how Obama is such a "wimp" for not invading the Arctic Circle immediately.

No. When the government is doing it, then it becomes a right to a resource that the person is entitled to. They will abuse it and rob the tax payer blind if they are allowed.

This is the most ass-backwards, head-up-your-ass argument...it's opposite to logic but it *sounds* so logical to people who don't think analytically

Take this **same philosophy** that you're accusing all people who receive assistance of having and apply it to your personal finances...

**ANYONE** who doesn't take advantage of all the government's programs for their benefit is an idiot, wasting resources

corporations spend **BILLIONS** to do just as you describe...maximizing their benefits

people don't want to be broke and poor...your whole logic is fallacious and it's obvious you're a closet Republican...just spouting the same tired bullshit

holy crap man...google it yourself...

The issue isn't seeing, the issue is caring.

right...i get your point (another poster said the same)

what I mean is, today there are good people who see homeless out the car window just bumming around under a bridge and that's all...that gives the perception that *all* homeless people are that way by choice

when our cities were smaller homeless families couldn't hide...

but yeah, i agree that the will to care has to be there in the first place

thanks for the link!

and yes, I see your point about SF today...

the Internet broke the culture of willingness to pay for journalism

Right effect wrong cause...blame the business side. I saw this happen firsthand as a web editor in Colorado, but it's not "the internet" that broke...it was narrow-minded business people in the administration that refused to adapt their concept of ad revenue

It's a narrow, non-tech MBA-style business approach that did this

right, there are "differences" because, inherently, the channel is different, but it doesn't affect the content...journalism is still journalism

there are myriad benefits to using the internet in the newsroom...the CMS's they have are great...very streamlined.

digital media, as you point out, is different by scale...the resources it takes to print 100,000 newspapers is much different than the resources to make an internet article that 100,000 people see

there are other obvious differences, and they matter to things like ad sales

this in no way proves TFA right or lets newspaper owners off the hook for their bad business decisions

I usually don't blame "technology" in the abstract for anything...IMHO it's too reductive of a concept to be useful and always glosses over the actual technical details

This, however, strikes me as different. This is a good thing because it communicates a *need* in a way that our modern society has made obsolete.

In the 18th Century, cities were so small and mixed that the rich **had to see the poor** daily. They had to see how they lived, open on the streets.

Today, for several reasons related to technology, the rich are able to go about their business completely obvlivious to the struggles of the poor.

Those struggles become nothing more than another voice in the din of TV/internet media...in the endless news cycle...easy to marginalize and ignore, even for a really civic-minded rich person...it's just not on their radar screen

This project aims to correct that with technology...I think it's valuable

TFA has it all wrong from the start.

The problem is, from a cybernetic perspective, the internet is just words, pictures and video at the presentation layer...

**its not inherently different** The **channel** for the information is different, but it's the same type of information

both a print & digital news requires a *reporter* and *editor*

a blog can never be the "paper of record"...it has to be an institutional entity with accountability

yes, of course the transition to digital formats was **mismanaged** by the non-journalism side of most news operations, but that is because the businesspeople made the same mistake TFA makes...thinking a digital news story is somehow inherently different b/c the channel is different

right,

when I said "removed the blanket" it is a reference to the report released by the cops

this is all in the report (sorry don't have time to to google it for you) and 60 Minutes did a 2 part story on it, which you can see online, that's where I got this info

the "1 bleeding to death" sign that we all saw in the classroom window was in reference to a teacher who was shot. He lay there bleeding out for 3+ hours then died

the report released much later by the cops finally explained some of what happened...the police had secured the school at least an hour before they attended to him, and when they did, as he lay there, one of the police removed a blanket that had been put to keep him warm while he waited

that's all that's in the 60 Minutes story...IIRC the police paid out a huge settlement to that family which of course bars them from publicly commenting

i suggest checking out the 60 Minutes story if you want to know more

Let's keep Columbine out of this...there was waaaaay more going on that what we saw on news reports.

Those boys were tormented by more than schoolyard bullying, more than fellow students.

The police admitted, in their book-length report, that they *removed the blanket* from the teacher who had been shot...remember the "1 bleeding to death" sign in the classroom window? Yeah...that guy...the police admitted they removed the blanket as he lay there dying

Second, Harris and Klebold were arrested and put on probation **a year before Columbine**...that info again didn't get released until years later...the details of their first arrest are still being withheld, only one page (that looks very incriminating to a group of police) has been seen publicly

those boys were sexually abused by cops

Schools are insane now...the way the school administrator and cops handled this was insane...but Columbine was an order of magnitude worse

next to Chinese Journalist

I do wish there was a party I was aligned with, but I just want a small government party, and there's no such animal any more).

stop bullshitting me, yourself, and all of /.

YOU ARE A REPUBLICAN

your policy positions are virtually identical

just accept it and move on...this discussion certainly cannot continue with your rhetorical nonsense

I love gaming and gamers. Platform, console, CPU, mobile app, web based, javascript, retro, LCD one-color sports games...all of it...played it, usually loved it. I even love ridiculous vaporware like Duke Nuke 'em 3D or w/e it was...b/c LOL...right?

I just stopped gaming after I finished college.

I think this study needs to take into account that high-level gaming can taper dramatically due to age/interest.

I'd like to see people who have a financial stake at being good at games over 5+ years compared.

I have mini-renaissances...I taught my dad how to play the Tiger Woods golf on xbox & he became better at it than me, with a whole bunch of online friends...I still pwn at Mario Kart no matter what anytime anywhere and can pretty much hang with Tetris grand masters on the game boy version...

see...i used to be a gamer...but now I just don't really give a shit...

you are, by policy position, a Republican.

just the way you answer the "women's rights" issue...

The Lilly Leadbetter Fair Pay Act was killed by the GOP

you're trolling not having an honest discussion