Re: Peter Principle

Peter Principle (Score: 3, Insightful)

by Anonymous Coward on 2014-06-19 17:30 (#26C)

Failing upwards. Great, the irresponsible maintainers of a second rate web browser get millions for something they have ZERO experience or expertise in, and reinventing a wheel that's available EVERYWHERE already via everything from phpBB to BuddyCloud and identi.ca etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_software_and_protocols_for_distributed_social_networking

Nice grift if you can get it. Do-nothing Mozilla and "don't you dare read our web site" NY Times deserve each other. A conjoined failure spiral.

Re: Peter Principle (Score: 1)

by zafiro17@pipedot.org on 2014-06-19 19:17 (#26F)

I've never understood all the hatred around paying the NYT to read their articles. Journalists cost money - I have a couple of journalist friends, and their kids need shoes too. I pay the NYT for a subscription that lets me read it on the web - $8 a month or something, not much considering what I pay for coffee in a month, and the quality of the reporting is good. You want free? Go to CNN or Washington Post, but you get what you pay for.

There's a whole generation that insists on its right to reading news for free on the Internet, forgetting that it costs money to get the news, write it, edit it, and run the servers.

Re: Peter Principle (Score: 2, Insightful)

by Anonymous Coward on 2014-06-19 19:27 (#26H)

I'll explain simply where the hatred comes from -- they're taking something away. People tend to resent that, whether it was a free lunch or not. Raising the price from "free" is never a popular move.

In general people do NOT hate the Wall Street Journal or scientific periodicals for their paywalls, simply because those paywalls have ALWAYS been there. But the NY Times has created and then progressively tightened its paywall over time, going from a site that was all-access and ad-supported for the general public to a closed site that will allow the public to read 2-5 articles before throwing up obnoxious blocks. It also greatly reduces the Times' value as a news source on the web.

We (the nonsubscribers) have lost access to something that was once available to us, simply because the NYT decided it couldn't make advertising work. It's sad, but not sad enough to make me comply with their demands to pay them...

In any case, it was only a small tangential remark about how neither Mozilla nor NYT are doing the right things, for themselves OR their users.

Time	Reason	Points	Voter
2014-07-16 21:06	Insightful	+1	kerrany@pipedot.org
2014-06-19 23:42	Interesting	+1	pete@pipedot.org

Story

Preview