We haven't "facebook announced" so I suppose it isn't official yet, but there's a little Irwin Diepenbrock on its way - I'll post the email notification we sent out in a comment.

While we're on the topic of 'the news', word on the street seems to be that the NY Times will be going back to some form of "for pay" model for its website. It's common knowledge that newspapers are struggling - advertising isn't bringing in as much money in the internet days as it did in the print days due to increased competition from other sources of internet news and the evil aggregators. On the one hand, charging for content brings in money - on the other it drives away readers and thus advertising dollars. And there's some idea of 'moral responsibility' it seems to provide news to people who can't afford it. This is 'the problem' that seems to have no good solution.

Or does it? Ok, back to the days pre-internet. If you wanted good news (i.e. not delivered by talking heads), you paid for a newspaper. If you were less concerned about knowing right now - or didn't have the money, you'd pick up a previously read paper at a coffee shop, bus stop, etc. If you want to find old old news, you'd go to the library and enjoy the wonders of microfilm - also for free. The only time you paid for news was to get it right now (or without coffee stains). What if... now work with me on this one... newspapers had a pay-wall for only the most recent stories? You want to read the headlines for today - subscribe. Yesterday - free. Blog posts from from the past month - subscribe. A year ago - free. Sports from the past week - subscribe. Last month - free. Classifieds - nobody uses these anymore, give up on it - craigslist wins. Oh yeah, and put ads on all the free stuff, and for heaven's sake keep annoying ads out of the pay area. If you want to implement this idea, (not that any journalists read this so I think it won't happen because of me) a kickback would be nice. Maybe I should patent this idea (although it probably already is).