And a brief news-related complaint.

I hate the New York Times' recent attempt to limit their site access primarily to paying subscribers.

I probably read at least five articles a day from their site before the new limits were put in place (20 free per month and then you have to subscribe). I know what's cost-intensive: international news coverage. I know what I actually read: opinion columns, food columns, and theatre reviews, with occasional health and Catholic news when I think the NYT coverage is most thorough.

Unless I get to put my subscription dollars toward the specific salaries of the reportage I want to see, though, the internet has spoiled me and I'm not paying for what I can get free elsewhere. If I could be assured my $10 a month would go to keeping theatre reviewers on staff, I'm all for it. But it's probably paying for expense accounts in Riyadh or Kabul, and I'm not following those stories so closely. (They're not actually required for my work or research although I might be curious about them.)

I don't know how to get news to pay for itself, precisely, although I can tell you I certainly seem to see enough ads on the NYT sites that I suspect someone's been concerned with their bottom line for a long, long time. I'm watching this limited-access attempt with interest, because I'm really hoping it goes down in flames within a few months.