Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Almighty Buck The Media News

NYTimes Unveils Online Subscription Plan 194

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the because-they-can dept.
An anonymous reader writes "The NYTimes announces their three pricing tiers for digital access. An interesting note: 'Readers who come to Times articles through links from search, blogs and social media like Facebook and Twitter will be able to read those articles, even if they have reached their monthly reading limit. For some search engines, users will have a daily limit of free links to Times articles.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NYTimes Unveils Online Subscription Plan

Comments Filter:
  • by GodfatherofSoul (174979) on Thursday March 17, 2011 @11:24AM (#35518080)

    Judith Miller. To paraphrase a surprisingly insightful comment from Ben Affleck, the NYT might be revered by older generations who lived through their glory days, but as someone who started following politics around Clinton's impeachment, the first thing I saw them do was sell a bullshit war and quite probably staff CIA-friendly propagandists.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by sarbonn (1796548)
      I definitely agree. When I attended West Point, one of the requirements at that time was that you were required to read the New York Times every morning (it was delivered to every cadet room, so you shared it with your roommates). Since then, I've always tended to steer towards the newspaper, thinking of it as a quality one, but the fact is it's gotten horribly bad over the years (specifically the time you pointed out). To make matters worse, the NYT still thinks it is the newspaper it used to be in the 19
      • $20 per month for the Kindle edition? How much is the dead-tree version? The Columbus [Ohio] Dispatch, aka the Columbus Disgrace, is almost $30 per month -- about $28 more than it's worth, IMO.
        • by MightyYar (622222)

          In NYC, it was just under $6/week delivered to your door(man). I have to assume that they don't get much ad revenue for the online edition and so they can't sell the "paper" as inexpensively.

          • by MattW (97290)

            I think that's just the intro price. I punched in a friend's manhattan zip code, and it offers it for $5.85/week for 8 weeks, but then it almost doubles.

            • by MightyYar (622222)

              Well, it's a buck fifty if you just buy it from the guy downstairs :)

              Either way, it has to be ad revenue if the costs are so similar. Can you imagine the cost of the paper, cost of delivery, and then giving a cut to the newsstand guy? Distribution is comparatively free on the web.

              • People not involved in publishing like to VASTLY overestimate printing and distribution costs. For a paper with NYT's circulation per-copy printing cost is miniscule and per-copy distribution isn't much either.

                • by MightyYar (622222)

                  Still, I'd bet the breakdown is something like 10 cents worth of paper, a quarter for the reseller, and another dime for the transportation. In short, almost 50 cents per paper per day. For a month that is almost 15 bucks. I guess I could be wildly off, but if anything it seems low :)

                  People on the web seem to have divined that the times spends over $600 million on distribution and about $200 million on their newsroom. They have under 900,000 readers. That's an ominous $666 per reader per year, or over $55 p

      • by mcsqueak (1043736)
        I was an editor at the school newspaper when I was in highschool, so we were also required to read the NYTimes and our local city rag every day (delivered free to us at school). I too formed a high opinion of the NYTimes that has stayed with me, despite their errors over the past decade. I'll be sad to say that I'll be browsing it less frequently once they start charging, because $15/mo just seems a little steep to me.
    • by dkleinsc (563838) on Thursday March 17, 2011 @11:49AM (#35518456) Homepage

      My basic view on the New York Times is that it is best read the way the Soviets used to read Pravda: The purpose of reading it isn't to learn the truth, it's to learn what those in power want you to think.

      That's not a useless exercise, but it's also not what it appears to be.

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by ZankerH (1401751)
        A 'Soviet' is a type of administrative council, not a denonym for citizens of the former Soviet Union.
        • In Soviet Russia, citizens are denonym!
        • by MightyYar (622222) on Thursday March 17, 2011 @12:53PM (#35519480)

          A 'Soviet' is a type of administrative council, not a denonym for citizens of the former Soviet Union.

          Just like "Shimmer", it's both!

          Did you just graduate from a course or something? The word "Soviet" has been used in the West for decades to describe citizens and the government of the Soviet Union. It is also commonly used as an adjective to describe other things associated with the USSR. That's what happens when you put the word "Soviet" in your country name.

        • You must have recently immigrated to America. Welcome. For your first lesson in American idiom:

          Soviet n. 2. A citizen of the U.S.S.R. Chiefly in pl. (hence loosely, = the Soviet Union or its leaders). [Courtesy of the OED]

          with the first cited usage dating to 1920:

          1920 Commercial & Financial Chron. 24 Jan. 288/1 He [sc. Clemenceau] insisted upon writing the final paragraph, ‘affirming that the Allies had not changed their attitude towards the Soviets’.
          1930 Amer. Speech 6 121 (heading) Jailed Soviets go on hunger strike.
          1959 Daily Tel. 7 Feb. 11/4 President Eisenhower, seeking one word to cover citizens of the Soviet Union, has braved the criticism of purists and adopted the term ‘Soviets’.

          This concludes your daily lesson in American Idiom.

      • My basic view on the New York Times is that it is best read the way the Soviets used to read Pravda: The purpose of reading it isn't to learn the truth, it's to learn what those in power want you to think.

        That's not a useless exercise, but it's also not what it appears to be.

        Well, you can tell by the way I post my reply,
        I know my stuff for a geeky guy.
        I come to Slashdot for my news.
        I'm a techie dude; I just can't lose.
        Now it's alright. It's okay. You may look the other way.
        But we can try to understand the New York Times' effect on man. [youtube.com]
        Ah, ah, ah, ah, modded +5, modded +5.
        Ah, ah, ah, ah modded plus fiiiiiiiiiiiiiiive!

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Koreantoast (527520)
        As the joke goes: people who think they should run the country read the NY Times; people who think they run the country read the Washington Post; and people who actually run the country read the Wall Street Journal.
        • I know it's just a joke, but the reason behind this joke is that the WSJ is known as a financial journal. But if you've been reading the wall street journal in the last decade and actually acted on their financial advice, odds are you've lost a lot of money. This goes from failing to even acknowledge that there was a housing bubble in the 2000s, to predicting that interest rates were going to start rising last year and massive inflation. The reason for this is the Murdoch effect, where he goes, conservati
    • Don't forget about them sitting on the warrant-less wiretapping story for over a year. Then there's them not saying that Raymond Davis was a CIA agent because the White house asked them not to. I don't trust them anymore either. My sig is more relevant than ever, and the NYT is doing its best to keep it that way.
  • BBC and AP (Score:2, Offtopic)

    by nighty5 (615965)
    While I'm paying for BBC news in London via the TV license, I won't miss the Murdoch machine that much. I do read the NYT once a day, but if they put up a paywall then I won't bother - there is simply enough news to go around. Murdoch put a paywall up on the London Times last year, which I stopped reading daily. Their readership plummeted. Obviously the London Times was a test bed with a large audience, you from what I've read, NYT will do everything they do not to make that same mistake. Time will tell if
    • NYT will do everything they do not to make that same mistake.

      Well, this is their third attempt at digital subscriptions, so I would hope they are improving.

      And Murdoch has nothing to do with the NYT.

  • I'm really upset about this. I love the NYT and it's my favorite general news source; but I simply can't justify paying that much. I guess us poor people who read a lot of news aren't in their target demographic.
    • by bigjarom (950328)
      Ok I feel better. I only had to clear the NYT cookies to bypass this ridiculous system.
    • by Maestro4k (707634)

      I'm really upset about this. I love the NYT and it's my favorite general news source; but I simply can't justify paying that much. I guess us poor people who read a lot of news aren't in their target demographic.

      Or just Google a bit to find a link to the article you want to read through a supported "search, blogs and social media" page that'll bypass the limit when you hit it. Shouldn't be a problem for current news, but will be an issue for historic articles. (Which I can understand charging for more than I can charging for everything.) This beats the hell out of what my local newspaper's done, they erected a paywall for everything. Even the most recent articles you can read a paragraph of and that's it, other

  • At 35USD every 4 weeks, they overpriced by a wide margin. Clearly they missed this article [slashdot.org]. Try 35USD/yr and I might think about it.

    • by surgen (1145449)

      At that price its cheaper for home delivery of the print edition 7 days a week.

    • For what it's worth, I'll leave that to the trolls, The Daily on the ipad is $39 a year. I've been using the free trial and it's got a bit too much sports and gossip for me, but no more than print tabloids if that's what you like.
      The recently launched news aggregate app, "Zite," is fairly slick and I can see it becoming my usual news over breakfast.

  • by Skarecrow77 (1714214) on Thursday March 17, 2011 @11:28AM (#35518150)

    I'm confused. Why would I ever want to pay for news?

    I've got free news from: cnn.com, msnbc.com, foxnews.com, bbc.uk, new radio, various news apps on my smartphone, and tens of thousands of idiotic commentary available to me across the web.

    What has NYT got that I can't get elsewhere for free?

    • by Trepidity (597)

      I do find their articles higher quality on average than the sources you listed, though for basic news reporting the difference isn't large, and for in-depth analysis there are alternatives that seem like they won't be paywalled (at least for now), like The Atlantic and The New Yorker. Their strength imo is fairly timely, news-ish analysis (versus long-form essay), but with at least a medium amount of context/analysis and independent reporting that isn't purely cribbed from Reuters or the Associated Press.

      No

    • by Mazzie (672533) on Thursday March 17, 2011 @11:33AM (#35518214)
      Its kind of like owning a luxury car. You still get from A to B, but you feel better than everyone else because you wasted your money.
    • by empiricistrob (638862) on Thursday March 17, 2011 @11:34AM (#35518224)
      Why would you pay for news? Perhaps because you value journalism? Because high quality journalism is essential for a well functioning democracy? Because you don't want to read news where 50% of the headlines are about Lindsay Lohan or "human interest stories"?
      • by surgen (1145449)

        Why would you pay for news? Perhaps because you value journalism?

        Pretty much, this is why I'm subscribed to the local paper even though I just read the copy at work.

      • by pugugly (152978)

        Not at $15/month - I value the NY Times, but they need to regain their reputation for premium journalism before I'll pay a premium price. In recent years they've been buffaloed too often into kowtowing to the right-wings false "Republican say all true Americans believe Earth Center of Universe - Some Dem's disagree" neutrality, and now seem to think there's no downside to that?

        Pug

      • by Attila Dimedici (1036002) on Thursday March 17, 2011 @11:52AM (#35518500)

        Why would you pay for news? Perhaps because you value journalism? Because high quality journalism is essential for a well functioning democracy?/quote> Of course, that still leaves the question as to why would you pay for the New York Times?

      • by cgenman (325138)

        While I agree all of that is valid, how is any of that related to the New York Times? There is a story about the dresses Lindsay Lohan wears to her court dates on the New York Times home page right now. There are also lots of fluffy pop stories like "Proud to be Japanese" and how to find a drink in Times Square.

        The New York Times has had journalism problems since at least the mid 90's, and has been replaced in relevance by an ever increasing number of news sources. The US produces a great many things, bu

        • There is a story about the dresses Lindsay Lohan wears to her court dates on the New York Times home page right now

          No it doesn't. Right now, the front page of the digital version covers the news in Japan (quite a few articles), an article on UN resolutions about Lybia, a couple of articles about the Arab revolutions in general and an article about the value of not getting a college education.

          There are also lots of fluffy pop stories like "Proud to be Japanese" and how to find a drink in Times Square.

          Yeah,

      • by SEE (7681)

        Because you don't want to read news where 50% of the headlines are about Lindsay Lohan or "human interest stories"?

        Right. Google News, disable Entertainment, use Greasemonkey to hide the video/fast flip/most shared junk. 100% free news, 100% Lindsay Lohan-free.

        • by drsquare (530038)

          100% free? So all those professional journalists work for free? That's generous of them.

          • by SEE (7681)

            Oooh, cutting insight! Next you can explain to me that Internet searches aren't free, because somebody is paying for the hardware and bandwidth and engineers at Google and Bing and Yahoo! And the fates of AltaVista, Cuil, Infoseek, and others is proof that free search is doomed. Accordingly, since I value Internet search, I should join a paid subscription Internet indexing and search site.

            Ahem. Now, back over at arguments worth actual attention, rather than derision and dismissal, the putative advantage

      • the New York Times a jingoistic advocate of the Iraq War? Thomas PM Barnett likened the run-up to this war as one of a cop shouting "He's got a gun!" as his pals burst thru a front door.
      • by ncc74656 (45571) *

        Why would you pay for news? Perhaps because you value journalism?

        If you value honest journalism, why would you give your hard-earned money to the frauds at the NYT?

    • Why would I ever want to pay for news?

      Because it has value to you. People have been paying for news or information (one way or another) for a long time. Information has value and people ARE willing to pay for it. I certainly am and I suspect you are too, at least up to a point.

      The problem is that it's very difficult to figure out exactly what information is valuable to specific people and even harder to place a dollar value on that information. What I value is certainly different than what you value and our willingness to pay is different.

      • by Kjella (173770) on Thursday March 17, 2011 @12:47PM (#35519378) Homepage

        The thing was that when I grew up there was a selection of newspapers, and you picked one (or at most two). Investigative journalism was probably always a loss leader, you filled the rest up with cheap world news, local information that people more than willingly offer and got "free" money on stuff like announcing happenings or schedules, second hand market listings, obituaries and lots of other things that people wanted to put in the paper. You more or less had to have all the bits or people would pick a different newspaper.

        Today, I can jump from one online site to the next on a story-by-story basis. Craigslist and eBay and lots of other companies will cherry-pick the lucrative bits and do pure sites based on that. World news? I can get those at the lowest bidder worldwide, being global and all. Before actually there was a value in getting a paper that'd tell you about the earthquake in Japan, today there 2342643 sites willing to tell you about it. So when you get everything else where it's cheapest, investigative journalism has to be its own profit center. The stories they make actually have to sell more than they cost to produce, there's no halo of additional income like there used to be.

        That's tough. You see many magazines still do well because they cater to niches. Some financial newspapers still do good, because it's vital the information is fresh and analysis good. The other case is that the other newspapers aren't selling yesterday's news anymore. If an investigative journalist "blows the lid" on a case at 9 AM in one newspaper, by 10 AM all the others will have called someone for comment and made their own arguably legitimate news reporting and by the time it hits the evening news they'll pretty much all have an equally broad covering. So all you get is to work hard then throw it to the sharks who'll all grab their own piece while hopefully still sending a bit of the viewers to your own site. As a vital institution of society it's important, as a business model I'd run for the hills.

      • by Unequivocal (155957) on Thursday March 17, 2011 @02:12PM (#35520622)

        All good points. I wish they had introduced a fourth option, which could have been like how automatic toll payments work in the SF Bay Area (and probably elsewhere, dunno). I put in a "retainer" amount of some value (say $20). When that amount drops to below a certain value, the system automatically "tops" me back up to the max amount (the toll system is slightly more dynamic than this but you get the idea).

        If I could put $20 in escrow with NY Times, I'd happily do so. Every time I read an article they could ding me $.25 or something. When I run out of article credits they top my account up by auto-charging again. I don't think many institutions could get me to subscribe in this way but NY Times is definitely one of them.

        I think internet models are most profitable when they are monthly subscriptions but they lose a lot of customers who don't want a monthly fee for something they use irregularly. Amazon is basically taking those customers in the internet rental business - Netflix charges subs, and Amazon charges per rental. I wish NY Times had introduced a per rental model *in addition* to the ones they did announce, for people like me who like the service but don't use it regularly enough to justify a monthly sub.

    • I've got free news from:

      That's what you think. When something is free, it's always necessary to question who is paying the cost, and how. What are you giving up in exchange for your 'free' news? At the very least, the vast majority are giving up significant information about their reading and browsing habits.

      • I would tell you who is paying for my news, but I have adblock installed so I don't see the advertisements.

        • Helpful, but I'd recommend looking closer. adblock doesn't stop everything even with a good list sub.
          • No, it doesn't, but it stops well in excess of 99%. I am far more surprised when I do see an ad than when I don't. I'd call that "good enough". I don't care for the hassle of trying to keep an updated hosts file.

    • What has NYT got that I can't get elsewhere for free?

      Exactly! Since you KNOW that all the urgent hot breaking news stories will show up here on Slashdot only about a week after they happen.

      G.

    • by DaveGod (703167)

      I'm confused. Why would I ever want to pay for news?

      I've got free news from: cnn.com, msnbc.com, foxnews.com, bbc.uk, new radio, various news apps on my smartphone, and tens of thousands of idiotic commentary available to me across the web.

      What has NYT got that I can't get elsewhere for free?

      Obtaining news from multiple different sources, especially if somewhat random, has problems.

      Obviously there's questions over the quality of your news source. Obviously very poor with the idiotic commentary like at fox news, but I still haven't found any free news source that is as good as an actual paper. Even if the source actually has a physical paper, they seem to put drafts online (in order to be quick) which are later amended once the editor has had a run at it. There's also often lots of crap that nev

    • What has NYT got that I can't get elsewhere for free?

      Paul Krugman.

    • The fundamental problem is this: it costs money to generate good news coverage, particularly investigative reporting and overseas news operations. Professional journalism as a whole, but newsprint in particular, is hemorrhaging money because online advertising is simply not a sufficient replacement to traditional print and broadcast advertising. So you're left with a small set of choices. You can go the BBC route and take government money, but then that leaves you at the mercy of the government sponsor.
    • by cashman73 (855518)
      Better yet, I just check two news sites on a daily basis: FARK [fark.com] and Slashdot [slashdot.org]. What more news sites does a geek really need?
    • by DesScorp (410532)

      I'm confused. Why would I ever want to pay for news?

      While you can certainly get breaking headlines anywhere on the web, those that subscribe to newspapers usually want a whole package that isn't available for free via the web. I subscribe to the Wall Street Journal, and I like the culture section, which is as good as any paper in the world. I like their editorial content and letters section, and of course, they have the best business and financial coverage anywhere (though the Investors Business Daily folks would argue that point).

      If you just want "latest he

  • Expensive (Score:5, Insightful)

    by empiricistrob (638862) on Thursday March 17, 2011 @11:29AM (#35518158)
    I'm very conflicted by this move from the times. In my opinion nytimes.com is one of the best sources of journalism on the web, and I've always been concerned that in the long run their business model wouldn't be sustainable. I think that paying money to support good journalism makes a lot of sense -- it's too important not to.

    But $15/mo for the entry level? That's really disappointing. There are many readers that will not be able to afford this. I was hoping the entry level would be closer to the $5/mo mark.
    • by c0d3g33k (102699)

      In my opinion nytimes.com is one of the best sources of journalism

      Based on other comments, it seems you should consider re-examining the basis for your opinion, since they seem to indicate that the proper term is "used to be", not "is".

      on the web

      Even on the web, given that it is a superset of what is available through traditional media channels.

    • My view on this is as follows: I pay netflix $10 a month for 1 DVD at a time and free unlimited online play. If I can't get more value then that in an online subscription, I don't get it.

      Frankly the amount of content available on the NYTimes is not worth $15 a month for me. I would be willing to spend $5 a month, and that's iffy.

  • by _0xd0ad (1974778) on Thursday March 17, 2011 @11:29AM (#35518164) Journal

    Readers who come to Times articles through links from search, blogs and social media like Facebook and Twitter will be able to read those articles, even if they have reached their monthly reading limit.

    That's good to know... the referer header is easy to forge.

  • by coldsalmon (946941) on Thursday March 17, 2011 @11:31AM (#35518182)

    This is a great way to get me to stop reading the NYT at work. Now, if only Slashdot would do the same thing I might actually get some work done.

    • by StikyPad (445176)

      Feel free to send me $15/mo to continue reading Slashdot. I'll even throw in access to Google News.

  • They are launching the pay wall in Canada first, effective immediately.

    Everything time something "good" rolls out from the USA (Hulu, iPhone, iPad, lots of shit from Amazon), it takes forever for it to get to Canada, if it gets here at all. Now this (definitely not "good") and they launch it in Canada first. Go figure.

    • Solution: Create more content and stop waiting for Americans to do all of the work.
  • So, wont we soon have browser addons to add referrers to the links to make use of this loophole??

    'Readers who come to Times articles through links from search, blogs and social media like Facebook and Twitter will be able to read those articles

    • by _0xd0ad (1974778)

      We already do. It's called RefControl [mozilla.org].

      • We already do. It's called RefControl.

        So far I have the following sites set to always get a referrer of "http://google.com/"

        nytimes.com
        wsj.com
        ft.com

        I've done it because at one point or another all of those sites have blocked access to some article with the default referrer but let my in with the spoofed referrer.

        I also block all cookies associated with those sites too.

    • by russotto (537200)

      So, wont we soon have browser addons to add referrers to the links to make use of this loophole??

      'Readers who come to Times articles through links from search, blogs and social media like Facebook and Twitter will be able to read those articles

      If you know the headline of the article, you can presumably just search for it, then click the link in the search engine, and not even bother faking anything.

    • by welcher (850511)
      They place a daily limit of 5 on the number of stories you can read by following external links.
  • Will the subscription come without ads, or perhaps at least without any ads you would not see in the newspaper? Doubtful of course, but I'm not going to pay that kind of subscription fee and still be blinked at.

    • Will the subscription come without ads, or perhaps at least without any ads you would not see in the newspaper? Doubtful of course, but I'm not going to pay that kind of subscription fee and still be blinked at.

      Hear, hear!

      On the bright side, $15/mo is a relatively big stick that we can wield to make demands about the quality of both the content and the user interface. As it stands now, we have no economic leverage aside from the nanoamount of ad revenue that NYT will lose if you or I stop reading their rag online.

      But as paying customers, we can actually demand changes. Stop showing blinky ads. Stop adding annoying user interface controls that no one asked for. Stop running stories that are obviously paid-for PR pl

  • I personally think $15 is a little steep. I'd pay $5... I'm a daily reader of the NYTimes online, but news can come from many sources, not just the Times. I guess if I really want to read a story I'll just post it for myself in Facebook and follow the link...
  • How long until someone crawls the NYT site and links all the stories from their Facebook account? What recourse would the NYT have, since they obviously have the capability to block this but have chosen not to?

    • by welcher (850511)
      They have partially blocked this as you can only access 5 stories a day via external links.
  • but you know what? I don't care because they're already irrelevant. They lost relevance around the time they staffed people like Judith Miller, Adam Nagourney, and Jayson Blair. Do I want to know something real? Well, in English I turn to the BBC. Because I also speak those languages, Der Spiegel and Le Monde as well.

    For everything else, I read eyewitness reports. And why shouldn't I? Media channels like the NYTimes long ago spun down their foreign operations. They rely on eyewitnesses too, same as

  • Their site says:

    Yes, NYTimes.com visitors can enjoy 20 free articles each calendar month as well as unrestricted access to browse the home page, section fronts, blog fronts and classifieds

    Unless they make visitors register (which doesn't seem to be the case, I just read a few articles without registering), then if I just delete my nytimes.com cookies can't I keep going back for unlimited free articles? Even if I have to register, I can just use multiple email addresses - gmail makes that trivial, I can have "myname+nytimes1@gmail.com, myname+nytimes2@gmail.com, etc. and they all go to my inbox.

    • by psydeshow (154300)

      Even if I have to register, I can just use multiple email addresses - gmail makes that trivial, I can have "myname+nytimes1@gmail.com, myname+nytimes2@gmail.com, etc. and they all go to my inbox.

      Ya know, there might be *someone* in the IT dept there who could figure out how to ignore everything after the + on a gmail address.

      Of course, anyone that smart would probably want to let you get away with it.

      After all, this whole "paying for news" thing sounds like a Stupidity Trap, avoidable by anyone who is even a little bit clever.

      • by hawguy (1600213)

        Even if I have to register, I can just use multiple email addresses - gmail makes that trivial, I can have "myname+nytimes1@gmail.com, myname+nytimes2@gmail.com, etc. and they all go to my inbox.

        Ya know, there might be *someone* in the IT dept there who could figure out how to ignore everything after the + on a gmail address.

        First, it's not even clear that I *have* to register with a valid email address, but even if they caught on to my gmail plus sign scheme, then I can just sign up for multiple gmail accounts and I can forward them all into a single account. Or use one of the remailing services mentioned by other another poster.

  • I might pay for a site that doesn't use gray text on a gray background like SOME people!
  • I think paying $360/year to read it on my iPhone and iPad is an absolute bargain.

    Who's with me?

  • by mcguirez (524534) on Thursday March 17, 2011 @04:27PM (#35522708)

    Their quality is generally good. I sometimes don't agree with their editorials - but the cost is *WAY* too high. Continuing to access it the way I do - from multiple devices - I would pay $35/month or $420/year. Nearly the cost of a new iPad each year or even a 0.99/app each and every day all year long. Nooo... I don't think so.

  • that rockets don't work in space and that a physics professor knew less physics than what was taught in a high school?
  • Seems like everybody in the media and quite a few here on Slashdot are not understanding the $15 for 4 weeks is not the same thing as $15 for a month. The tradition understanding of a 'month' is 12 months per year. There are 13 '4-week-months' in a year, not 12.

    52 / 4 = 13 'months'

FORTRAN is a good example of a language which is easier to parse using ad hoc techniques. -- D. Gries [What's good about it? Ed.]

Working...