101–108 of 108 posts
http://www.hhs.gov/opa/familylife/annualconfabstracts/brain_... Folks, he's 17. This is a 17 year olds type of mistake. His brain isn't fully developed yet. In a past era, it would have just been covered up.
"In a past era" a 17 year old male would have been a married man with children and serious social responsibilities.
And the newspaper in question would have just covered up the mistakes.
I hope he learns from this, and it kinda sucks my article is gone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
*... has anybody here been approached by writers to post links under their HN username ? [This] has definitely happened to me..." Really? That's awful. Ha - I've been making comments around saying that people shouldn't be outing the intern. But now I'm dying to ask you who it was. Maybe if the person's real identity can't be guessed from the username...? Jeez, I don't know. This sucks; I'm going to bed. Figure out th…
I've made the question in to a poll: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1103021
Stupider(read: more damaging) things are done by 17 year old kids everyday. Heck, I can't even share mine and at the time it happend I just wanted to lock myself in a room. But it taught me a lesson that I pretty much apply a few times everyday. When the dust settles, pick yourself up and tell yourself "I'll never be that stupid again". It's been a few yrs but I still tell myself that and it usually does wonders in k…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The difference between being paid to cover something and covering something in return for an exclusive is that in the latter case your readers benefit as well. Even if your only criterion in deciding what to print was how newsworthy it was, you'd still be more likely to print a story if you'd been given an exclusive.
How does a reader benefit from news that is available from fewer sources? Also, if you're more likely to print a story when given an exclusive, then newsworthiness is not your only criterion in deciding what to print.
Did I really need to explain that? This reminds me of the thread a few days ago when I had to explain that it was not necessarily meaningless to talk about something that would have happened.
This is why I need to get rid of points on comments. 11 points on a comment makes it into something that demands an answer. Without points it would just have to stand on its own merits.
(Your second sentence is simply false. The newsworthiness of a story isn't constant; it's higher the first time the story is published. E.g. that Steve Jobs had a liver transplant has near zero newsworthiness now, but it was big news when the story first broke. And if someone gives you an exclusive on a story, then you're assured that it will be breaking news when you publish it, with the attendant increment in newsworthiness.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The difference between being paid to cover something and covering something in return for an exclusive is that in the latter case your readers benefit as well. Even if your only criterion in deciding what to print was how newsworthy it was, you'd still be more likely to print a story if you'd been given an exclusive.
How does a reader benefit from news that is available from fewer sources? Also, if you're more likely to print a story when given an exclusive, then newsworthiness is not your only criterion in deciding what to print.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How does a reader benefit from news that is available from fewer sources? Also, if you're more likely to print a story when given an exclusive, then newsworthiness is not your only criterion in deciding what to print.
If The Economist gets an exclusive that Time doesn't, then The Economist 's readers have information that Time readers don't. Did I really need to explain that? This reminds me of the thread a few days ago when I had to explain that it was not necessarily meaningless to talk about something that would have happened. This is why I need to get rid of points on comments. 11 points on a comment makes it into something th…
About my second sentence - I was imagining a story with little newsworthiness, as this is one extreme of your "only criteria". If a publisher is more likely to publish this story because of an exclusive, which is what you seem to be saying, then newsworthiness isn't the only criteria.
I did not mean to be combative or demand an answer from you - my apologies if I came off that way. I just don't agree with or don't understand your point of view, and said so. Apparently 10 other people thought that it stands on its own merits well enough to deserve an upvote. If you don't agree, that's fine, but the snark is uncalled for. If you don't think a post is worthy of a reply, then don't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How does a reader benefit from news that is available from fewer sources? Also, if you're more likely to print a story when given an exclusive, then newsworthiness is not your only criterion in deciding what to print.
Time. The world receives the knowledge sooner, allowing us to use it sooner.