Here is what's missing from a bad piece of science journalism. There will be no discussion of whether the study had a control. There will be no indication that some methodologies are more powerful than others -- the reader is assumed not to know or care about gold standards such as "Double blind" and the like. There's no attempt to recapitulate the scientific argument; the reporter need only lamely report the conclusion. Obvious questions arise from the reporting, but are left unaddressed.

The New York Times and The Economist magazine tend to do better than that. AP tends to be awful.

The government wouldn't have to choose. They could simply distribute subsidies on the basis of circulation or hits. Sure, there's scope for hit-fraud, but advertisers have dealt with this problem IRL for decades.

The newspaper model depends far more on advertising than subscription revenue: anyone who doesn't think that this leads to slanted coverage is hopelessly naive. If anything distributing revenue in proportion to circulation would fight oligarchy, not enhance it.

The Brits worked off this model for years with the BBC. Everyone who owns a TV pays an annual fee. The result was that the BBC produced a range of shows where everyone would have at least a couple that they loved. In contrast, the advertiser-driven eyeball model encourages production of everyone's third choice. You don't have to like the show, you just have to keep the channel knob tuned to it.

All that said, this proposal is a nonstarter in the US: it's the stuff of academia and white papers.

I got a 40 out of 70, implying that I'm a callous asshole.

Maybe they are correct. But I can say that " When I'm upset at someone, I usually try to "put myself in his shoes" for a while." That describes me very well. I hope that I reflexively consider the POV of those I disagree with.

But then, I don't feel pity or tender feelings for those less fortunate than me. Feelings shmeelings, what people need is a hand up. So yes, I do donate to charity.

In short, I'm cerebrally empathetic, but not especially softhearted. Hence my lousy score.

The Sad Thing... is that nobody appreciates comedy anymore.

Er - I think the guy was joking. He also asked with regards to the gas station, "Can I buy Europe on pump 4?" Somehow I doubt whether this was a serious question.

I'm not sure what they want, but they are getting the tech, the brand, the manufacturing plant and let's not forget the distribution network.

The buyer, Sichuan Tengzhong, looks like an interesting company. They manufacture heavy equipment, special-use vehicles, highway & bridge structural components, construction machinery and energy facilities. That's a varied mix, but I don't see passenger autos in there. They've been in business since 2005. They are a private company; I'm not sure where they get their funding or their origins.

http://www.mahalo.com/Sichuan_Tengzhong#guide_note-Official-1

I agree that no-cost photography is a helpful development.

In the 1970s and 1980s budding photographers were advised to spend more money on film than on equipment. And the pros would routinely throw out the vast majority of the pics they made.

The difference now is that these practices can now be conducted on a far smaller budget.