Work vs Self-Promotion

Here we go: yet another article with "advice" on how to find success - this time at Forbes.com with a terrific example of the genre entitled 'Want to be successful? Quit working so hard'.

There is a solid kernel of truth in this advice, at least in the title. Being known as a 'hard worker', and slaving away at a desk job (or any job) for 12 hours a day will not generally be rewarded with 'success' in terms of money and renown.  Most of us already know this, even if some of us (ahem) only figured it out after years of doing the same.

What Journalism Has In Common With Stockbroking

I'll dispense with the preamble. What journalism has in common with stockbroking is this:

An old model which was well established and profitable is transitioning with a lot of pain to a new model, which everyone is still trying to figure out.  

The old model was comfortable and cushy (for those at the top). The new model is a major change, culturally, psychologically and commercially, and it is not yet - but one day will be - profitable.

Sira Anamwong/freedigitalphotos.net

Journalism:

Another month in Australia, another horrible rupture for Fairfax. If I was a journalist I would probably write "the embattled Fairfax". After already pruning itself back in 2012 and again in 2013, this week the company announced it will cut the equivalent of 120 full-time jobs from its newsrooms.

That's a lot of journalists. It's hard to imagine the company even has that many jobs left to spare. (And according to staff, they don't).

And I really feel for Fairfax. Not only because I love The Age and am a subscriber who reads it every day, but because I think in very difficult circumstances they have been forging an evolution towards an online model quite well.  

New media is great. But blogs and tweets and news fragments do not fill the gap left by traditional newspapers. New media still needs journalists to write the stories, and "citizen journalists" just aren't as good.




Of course, we will get used to it. Just as we have got used to the passing of great puns in headlines (largely gone in favour of SEO), and elementary grammatical and syntax errors in broadsheet news (now that sub-editing, like everything else, is outsourced to cheap workers overseas). We got used to those things, and the world didn't collapse.

So, there is no choice - citizen journalists it shall be, and the real journalists will find work somewhere, somehow, in this new cacophony. Not all the ones being let go now, unfortunately, but future ones will.

Somehow I don't think either the paid subscription model used by most newspapers and journals online now, or the Buzzfeed model, will be the lasting profitable solution.

I wonder what it will be?

Stockbroking:

Stockbroking has always been a world of boom and bust, but ever since the 2008 crash and the Great Recession that followed (or still follows), it's been all bust. The stockbroking model as it was before then has truly broken and is never coming back. That's probably even a good thing.

Since 2008, it's been impossible to squeeze money out of traditional stockbroking. The margins are too thin; no one wants to pay for brokerage and research when they can get what they need online.

In Australia the ASX has piled more and more compliance obligations on brokers, and ever-higher liquid capital requirements to guard against insolvency collapses. In classic Law of Unintended Consequences style, the result has been an explosion of "shadow brokers" - small and nimble dealing and advisory businesses that range from serious, ethical companies with management and due process, to guys operating out of their loungerooms with, let's just say, less than that.

In the last decade that I worked in broking operations, I watched these companies come and go, the same people moving from license to license and company to company in a never-ending scramble to find some way to make money. Most of these people are straight up, love broking and just want to make money for their clients and themselves - but the landscape is unforgiving.

So now everyone knows the future is "online". The future is "robo-advice" (less risk of non-compliant customer management or advice), and "fintech".

But what is the best kind of company to run? What's the best service to offer: advice to customers, or services to dealers? How do you innovate and create a solution, and not be copied by a thousand imitators with the same access to the cloud that you have?

Time will tell.



I'd love to step 5 years into the future and see what's happening in both journalism and financial services. My guess is both will be profitable, but not exactly in ways people are building them now. The future will come up with something else.



Disclaimer: I work in FinTech and love it.   :)

Minecraft Part 2: Getting Banned

Last week I wrote about Minecraft online gaming, known to non-parents as pvp (player vs player) - an arcane universe inhabited by ten-year-olds and their demonic alter-egos, where good times can turn to crap at the tap of a birchwood block.  

At some point in their recent Minecraft career, my kids discovered the shock and horror of being BANNED.

At this point you may want to refresh yourself with the PvP glossary presented in Minecraft Part 1.  

Being BANNED is worse than being KICKED. Being KICKED just means you've been kicked off the game (disconnected from the server), and you can get back in another time. Being BANNED means the Admin (owner/moderator) has BANNED you from the server, probably forever! (At least in most cases).

To cheer up my kid and out of curiosity, I googled "reasons for being banned in Minecraft" and the result is very funny. You can be banned for all sorts of reasons, from legitimate ones like griefing or trolling or killing other players, through minor infractions like speaking in all caps or asking for "OP" one too many times, to baffling ones that apparently involve saying or doing the wrong thing in front of the wrong Admin.

Most of the ones below came from this Minecraft forum thread.  They made me chuckle.

Some reasons for being banned from a Minecraft PvP server

Upsetting an Admin

For being impatient

For unintentional destruction

For following your architectural dreams

For not obeying the laws of gravity

For being too badass

Because you peaked

For solving a game challenge too quickly

For asking an annoying question too many times - like once

For possibly being a Brony

For saying Hi

For wanton destruction

For committing two horrible crimes at once:

For unrepentant warmongering

For being American

For annoying the French

For being called Dylan

For swearing

For hate crimes against art

For inverting a Minecraft element to reference a pop culture trope

As a result of a complex battle which ended with mutual respect

For killing everyone and taking their stuff - actually this ban sounds pretty legit:

For inadvertently playing against someone's political beliefs 

Just because

And perhaps saddest of all: FOR NO REASON

These cheered up my kids and gave me an entertaining evening's reading. 

But I still don't quite know how to play Minecraft.

galaxybackground.com Wallpaper 15

Minecraft Part 1: What the hell are you talking about, kids

I thought I was a very tech savvy parent and secretly felt pretty smug about my preparedness for my kids to gradually enter the fray of online life.  Then along came Minecraft.

I'll admit, gaming has been a bit of a black hole for me. What little I know about gaming I have gleaned from 9Gag and Gamergate (which, you know, both make gaming seem super awesome).

I am, however, a technophile and ambitious to know it all. I mean, I switched from an iPhone to a Samsung two years ago, so I'm like, pretty cutting edge.

Now that the kids have an Xbox, I fully intend to give up some Netflix time to learn how to steer the goddamn Need for Speed car down the middle of the highway instead of careening from barrier to barrier and getting stuck in reverse, and I am looking forward to trying a first-person shooter game to see how violent it makes me.

But commanding the Xbox controller is, like, hard. Why are kids immediately so dextrous at this stuff? I cannot get all my fingers plus my brain to work in unison. I cannot get my car or skateboarder to go more than a couple of metres without crashing. This is a good way to immediately feel like your own parents as your kids try and keep the laughter out of their voices while they show you how to use the technology. Karma.


Back to Minecraft...

The kids have long loved Minecraft and spend a borderline unhealthy amount of time glued to their screens building stuff and playing interactive games.  And here's where I (also) got caught napping. I had no idea you could play Minecraft online.

When my kids started having run-ins with online etiquette and trolling, they came to me with complaints and lengthy descriptions of online interactions I could barely understand. And I thought I knew about online interactions! I was a bit shocked and had to have some quick tutorials from my ten year olds on what the hell they were talking about.

Here's the deal: you can join servers run by other people and build stuff in their world, or play battles or racing games where you are playing against, and interacting with, other players. This whole world is subject to a whole lot of arcane rules and etiquette the kids pick up fairly quickly, but is also obviously subject to the whims of the people running it.

There are also the usual dispiriting online spats between friends where someone gives some people access to a game but not others, or kicks one person out for bad behaviour but lets their best friend behave worse, etc. There are days when this seems to be happening all the time and I have to tell the kids to take a break from it and do something else, and sometimes they even listen to me.

The thing with online play is that your kids can be sitting calmly in the lounge room tooling around on their iPod and you can be sitting a metre away, and a whole world of turmoil can be going on where they show no sign and you have no idea.

For me (and I'm trying not to sound smug here, as I know I don't have this solved) the answer is to try and be involved enough to understand what's going on and be interested in the games and the online world so they will talk to me, and we can talk about the problems as they come up.

There are millions of kids playing Minecraft. Most Minecraft players these days are probably under 13, but there are a lot of adults too.  My kids and I have talked a lot about this, what it means and what they need to keep in mind. We've had a couple of ugly moments, but for the most part, it's been fun and educational and the girls have been handing it well.

There are Minecraft glossaries and guides online you can Google if you want to know how redstone is used, or what a creeper or an Enderman is - this one is a good place to start - but they don't have the words my kids and their friends are using when they talk about interactive play.


Here are the Minecraft words I hear all the time and what they mean:

Minecraft online play words and meanings 

Seed - the code that Minecraft uses to generate terrain and content in worlds you create. There are online directories where people have shared good seeds or people pass them on through word of mouth. The reason these are valued is that without a good seed you have no idea where you will "spawn" to start your game: it could be awesome terrain, or it could be "a bland, uninspiring world full of flat grassland and the odd chicken" (that sounds familiar as that's what I got the one and only time I tried to play Minecraft on my own)

Server - any Minecraft player can set up a game on a Minecraft public server and others can join if they have the IP address of the server (which is passed around by word of mouth or found in the Minecraft public server directory)

Admin - person who runs the server, gives access to players and polices behaviour

OP - "give someone OP" - full access to all the available commands. The Admin as someone who is already OP gives OP status to other users. If you are given OP, it is generally bad form to give others OP without permission from the Admin.

Donate - Admins will sometimes ask players to donate money to the server, which is fair enough when it's a couple of dollars to help with the cost of an established game, but can be a bit rich if players are asked to donate as soon as they join, or if it's more than a couple of dollars, or if it's in return for getting a ban removed, etc.

PvP (player vs player) - term refers to interactive play with other online players, but my kids and their friends (in which case others they play with online as well) are using it as a noun to mean the server/game hosting the play, e.g. "I was on an awesome pvp yesterday but I updated my iPod and now I've lost it"

Grief (verb), Griefer (noun - person who griefs) - destroying things others have built, generally causing trouble in the game

Lag (verb) - perform moves that cause the game to lag - a major infraction that can get you banned. Eg flying.

Kick - to be "kicked" is to be kicked out. Not as bad as being banned because you can usually get back in, but it is done as a warning, or in a fit of pique

Ban - you can get banned for griefing, lagging, trolling, speaking in all caps, using annoying phrases like "lol" or "yolo" or... all sorts of things really! I will cover that in Minecraft Part 2...

Wallpaper image by dkjjr at Minebook

Zoo, Brooklyn Nine Nine and other equally great ways to waste time

Golden Age of Television. It's a great time in history, is it not?

There's more good TV than you'll ever watch (Mad Men, House of Cards, Breaking Bad, Better Call Saul, Fargo, Broadchurch, The Killing, Sherlock, The Thick Of It, Homeland, Narcos, Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt and more)

There's more kind-of-good TV than you'll ever watch (Orange Is The New Black, Game of Thrones, Parks and Recreation, The Walking Dead, Supernatural, Doctor Who and more)

There's TV I still haven't watched but which I know is at least kind of good, and likely very good or great (The Fall, Jessica Jones, Master of None, Girls, Transparent, Veep, and more).

There's TV I tried some time ago and have no interest in it so stop talking about it, internet, as if it's as good as the good stuff! (Entourage, The Good Wife - get out).

But, thanks to Netflix (or Stan, or Presto), there is always something at least passably good, and most often actually very good, right at your fingertips. For people my age who grew up on decades of lame to woeful network TV shows, it's amazing how good most of it is, and how much there is.

It's not all "great" television but it is stuff the Golden Age of Television probably makes possible nonetheless, because there's room for every niche as long as everything has high production values and a fast turnaround time.

Here's the stuff I've been enjoying - a mix of good, great and silly:

Better Call Saul

Who didn't love Saul in Breaking Bad?  This is very different but didn't disappoint.  I love him even more now. Plus he's kinda hot. I know!!

The Delivery Man

Really pretty silly. Cop becomes midwife and reverse-sexist shenanigans ensue.  Also has Jenny from Cold Feet (remember Cold Feet?) Mildly funny and easy to watch.

Human Prey

6-episode doco series with melodramatic narration, each episode re-enacting 3 stories of people who survived horrific animal attacks. Includes interviews with the survivors, and representations of the animal bites using x-ray-style graphics of teeth and skeletons, complete with blood and bone crunching noises. Shamefully awesome.

Brooklyn Nine Nine

Finally! Season 2!! I love this show. I love it more than Jake obviously loves Amy. Which is a lot.

Some movies:

The Awakening, Case 39, Let The Right One In

Good supernatural horror

Passengers, Unknown, Chloe

Ridiculous but enjoyable psychological suspense/thrillers. 

Interstellar

Just saw this and loved it. Awesome (I mean I was actually awed) movie. Not really what I expected and left me thinking (unlike most of the other things on this list...)

And back to TV: my current show of choice:

Zoo

Oh this is so good. It has an awesome premise (the world's animals have had enough, and are en masse turning on people), but is not great in execution.  It could have been a lot better - or maybe the story is just a bit too silly.  It is fun to watch though. It has a predictably evil global corporation, some beautiful settings, beautiful animals, and it has Billy Burke (the only hot man in the Twilight movies)

It also has Bess Armstrong - remember her?? I think I last saw her in Jaws 3D. But it came back to me, watching her scenes, that she was never a very good actor.  In fact, once I saw her name on the opening credits and started looking for her, that was how I recognised her.

Zoo also has some silly dialogue, cliched characters, leaps of flawed logic and what I believe is probably very inaccurate science (but, you know, I could be wrong). The scenes with animals are also a little weird, because you don't actually see any animal attacks, and the animals are obviously just standing or running as ordered. (The scene with wolves attacking a prison was a scary idea, but looked a bit too much like a group of dogs loping happily towards their off-screen trainer).

There is a thread on Reddit with a link to this review on YouTube which pretty neatly skewers this show. But whatever, it's silly schlocky fun and I'm enjoying it.

My favourite piece of dialogue so far:

"I don't know which was worse, being attacked by lions, or finding out my sister was sleeping with my fiance."

And re-reading this, I think I may be spending too much time watching TV.    

IMDB message boards (with movie spoilers)

One of the things I like to read on the internet is the message boards on IMDB. Sometimes there are very thoughtful and informative posts by serious film afficionados (who probably call themselves afficionados) which add something to my understanding of a film or TV series. Sometimes (wait, no, actually always) there are long diatribes about why the main female character is a selfish harridan who has horribly oppressed her poor male partner (ugh). And sometimes there are good questions and entertaining conversations between people with opposing views.

Here are some things I've watched recently and my favourite comments from the IMDB message boards.

This post has SPOILERS for all the movies included here, so read on forewarned!

Drag Me To Hell

Drag Me To Hell is a great horror-comedy about a loan officer whose hard-hearted business decision at work leads an old gypsy woman to curse her with three days of torment followed by being dragged to hell. Many of the message board discussions are around whether or not Christine deserved to be dragged to hell, for what she did, or the kind of person she is. Dragged to hell. For an eternity of pain and torment. I love the fact people think they can debate whether or not a person (any person?!) would deserve this.

Fair use rationale of movie posters: ditto

[The old woman who curses Christine] is an evil b!tch, and the fact that she happens to be old, sick, and poor doesn't change that. 

Christine is a vegetarian, which in my book earns her some points as a compassionate person. She kills her cat to try to appease the demon, hoping that she will be able to avoid spending eternity in Hell. I think that's totally understandable.

Why exactly did that old woman need a third extension on her mortgage? Isn't the whole point of being a gypsy means you're constantly on the move with no permanent roots?

In reply to an argument in a thread:
You are assuming that all demons behave the same way under all circumstances. 

Also opens up a side discussion on the merits of banks and capitalism generally, and the fairness or not of loan extensions.

The Walking Dead

I'm not a huge fan of The Walking Dead. I found the first episode absolutely compelling, but it kind of seems to be the same thing over and over again, and it doesn't really seem to be going anywhere. I watched Seasons 1 and 2 and felt I had probably got the idea.  But it's an interesting take on the zombie apocalypse and it's done the visuals and tropes a bit differently, so I still watch it occasionally.

One user review opines that this show is good because of character development (hmm, arguable), which is "not usually a very big trait in the Zombie genre."  Um, yes, that is true.

There is a question about why we don't see characters using bicycles more, which opened up a whole discussion about whether bikes or cars are better transport during a zombie apocalypse, including their merits with regard to fuel use, speed, dexterity, ability to use weapons while riding, conservation of fighting energy, etc.

There is a discussion about how strong zombies are, whether newly minted ones are stronger and then decay, or whether the virus has made them strong.

Here's a very good point too:

 ...inconsistency that allows a rag tag group with no training to survive yet had the military and police be wiped out in a week.

and this one:

Where are all the fat walkers? America is full of overweight folks. Stands to reason about 50% of the walkers we see should be heavy. 

Not to mention the show takes place in the south so 70% of the walkers should be crisco filled fatties.


and:

Why aren't we seeing any child walkers?

LOL cos child actors suck at that!

127 Hours

127 Hours is the true story of Aron Ralston, who got trapped by a fallen boulder while hiking in the Utah desert, and after suffering for days without food and water, finally amputated his arm with a pocket blade, before rapelling down a cliff face and walking to find help. While it might not sound that entertaining, it's actually a pretty good movie. James Franco stars and is unbelievably good.

As you'd expect, most of the message board comments focus on the real-life story:

Be honest, could you have done what he did?
NO I would have literally $hit myself within the first 10 minutes, I would have used all the water in few hours and slit my throat by second day lol.

Why didn't he wait for like a month and get super skinny? And just pull his arm out? 
It would have rained eventually and he wouldnt have needed to cut the arm off.


In response to a serious post "don't actually drink your own urine, it's full of salt, etc":
Wow. Thanks for that great tip. I shall make sure I never drink my own p!ss. Good job I read this post. 

Who knew? 
OP - would it be OK to drink your own p!ss if you filter it first through, oh, I don't know, a sponge or a sock full of sand? You know, only if you were really really thirsty and miles from home?

How could he drink that puddle water at the end?

He had already drank his own pee at that point, I think some muddy water won't do him much harm.

am i the only one...
i guess not being familiar with mr. ralston's back story, i found the unexpected display of foolhardy stupidy.. er, bravado, totally devoid of anything i could have empathized with or relate to on a human level.. 
worse yet, after the movie was over, all i kept thinking about is that he deserved it.. 
in fact, halfway through it, i had completely lost interest and kept openly rooting for him to cut his arm off and put himself and the audience out of our collective misery.. 

Internet comment forums are well known for compassion.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes

Another pretty good movie. Kudos for taking a different tack to start off the franchise anew, and like all good science fiction, starting with something that is controversial now (vaccines, animal testing). Here's something in it I hadn't noticed:

I just saw this movie yesterday and there was one detail I started to notice after about an hour. None of the apes seemed to have genitals. You can clearly see that during some frontal shots. I looked it up on the internet and it seems I'm not the only one to complain about this. 

Some good responses:

Guess CGI penis is a bit too risque for a major studio like Fox.

Movies like this don't want nudity, they want to sell the tickets to the entire family if they can... it's not an art-house picture.

And an ethical discussion:

If a cure for cancer could only be found by animal testing....would you approve of it? I certainly would. I'm 110% against animal testing for cosmetics but for curing horrible illnesses and pandemics (such as AIDS), I think it's a necessary evil. 

Cancer, yes. 
HIV/AIDS, no. 

???! Let's hope this guy isn't tasked with making actual ethical decisions ever.

Romancing the Stone

My absolute favourite movie from the 80s, recently re-watched. There is some funny discussion on 1980's aesthetics, including synth pop music soundtracks, shoulder pads, curly hair and non-whitened Hollywood teeth.

But also:

A friend recommended this movie to me. Just want to check, is this movie ok for men to enjoy? Or is it more of a girls movie? (I ask because of the title)

(better not take the risk, dude!)

And a justifiable complaint here, as movies from this era had a cringingly awful habit of fetishising foreign places:

It would be nice if Hollywood people did some research about Colombia. I live in the capital city Bogota. Remember they had to take a funny bus to go to Bogota? well guess what, Bogota has an airport!   We don't have monkeys on trees even if you travel from one city to another. Bogota is not some hot tropical city as they depict, it's average 13 celsius. 

- followed by an argument between commenters over whether Colombia is tropical or not, whether it's dangerous or not, and finally one exhorting a commenter to get a Colombian girlfriend to do some research because American girls are all fat and awful.

This movie contains a visual trope I have since seen in many, many movies set in far-off places, which I've mentioned before: bus passengers carrying live chickens.   It seems to be a Hollywood shorthand for 'poor country'.

Big Eyes

Big Eyes is Tim Burton's latest film, the true story of artist Margaret Keane whose husband falsely took credit for her work and gained it international fame/notoriety (not everyone was a fan) in the 1950s-60s. I'm not a big Tim Burton fan but thankfully this film was Bonham-Carter/Depp free and I loved it.  However the message boards asked two questions I had wondered myself:

How did Margaret get the money to fly to Hawaii and buy a house?
(not really explained... commenters assume they had cash stashed in the house but still doesn't really explain it... But apparently the real Margaret Keane left Walter for another man, which is not as cinematically dramatic as running for her life out of a burning studio, but would explain the cash question a bit better). But, you know, in movies women can't leave husbands for other men as it makes them unsympathetic.


Why does Margaret's daughter sit in the back seat of the car?
I mean this was the 1950s! Safety-conscious parents just made sure their kids weren't riding on the hood or the roof of the car, right? But following a long string between commenters back and forth about whether 1950s parents made kids sit in the back seat or not, and whether throwing your arm in front of your kid's chest will stop them flying through the windscreen in the event of a crash (it will not), the consensus is reached that it was done mainly for visual effect, which is fine by me.

The final post in the thread is by "tomisinthehouse" who says simply:
What a dumb question.

Well no it isn't, tomisinthehouse, because I had the same question and I am not dumb! So there.

What's your favourite internet comment forum?

The Culture of Free

There's been a lot written about "the culture of free" on the internet.

About how Napster spawned the expectation of most consumers that they can get great stuff for free online, and how newspapers and any company trying to make any profit at all have been trying to combat it ever since.

About how "if you're not paying for the product [Google, Facebook], then you are the product".

About how journalism is struggling to stay afloat, relevant and high-quality in a deluge of content-farming clickbait sites paying zero dollars for content.


I am part of the problem. I love my favourite podcasts but have so far not donated to a single one. (I tell myself I will). I use Wikipedia all the time, and I would like to keep it free of ads, but I have not contributed to their $3 fundraiser (I tell myself I will).

I have one online newspaper subscription, to Fairfax, which gives me full access to The Age and the Australian Financial Review for a very reasonable amount (which I suspend when funds are tight). I used to also have The Australian, but I let that go a couple of years ago when it became just too ridiculously right-biased even for my fairly elastic tastes.

I used to have an online subscription to Vanity Fair (jeez, a lifetime ago - who has time to read those articles now?). And I gave myself a three-month print-and-online subscription to New Scientist for my last birthday, which I plan to cancel - not because it's not excellent, but because it's expensive. I know buying a print magazine almost every week is more expensive, but an odd thing happens when you take up a subscription: you stop reading the bloody thing. Why it is I eagerly bought and read every issue at the newsagents for premium dollars for years, and now have 10 issues unopened from their plastic wrappings and the app barely accessed on my phone I just don't understand, but there it is.

I read lots of books on Kindle, and I buy a few songs from iTunes. (I know, Spotify, Pandora etc - I'll get there).

But apart from those things, I don't pay for anything I consume online.  (I don't torrent movies, or try to get around paywalls - I just stick to the free stuff).

I read newspapers, Slate, Cracked, Buzzfeed, Salon, Rolling Stone, The Atlantic, Jezebel, Freakonomics, i09, Forbes, New Scientist, Meanjin, Daily Science Fiction... and anything else interesting I get from Twitter or elsewhere. All excellent content, all "free" for now.

I know it's going to get worse. Pop-up ads are getting more intrusive, especially on mobile devices - many are virtually malware. It has got to the point where you just can't finish reading a '15 celebrities who...' list without giving up in disgust. Honestly!

And yet I am part of the problem.

To be honest I'm not sure Napster is to blame, or that it even started with the internet. In my youth I loved PBS Public Radio and I was happy to hear every second song interspersed with earnest pleas for donations, and I never donated anything (I always told myself I would).

You see I always think: what if I donate and this thing doesn't survive - I've lost my money.
And even less nobly, I think: enough other people will donate, it will be OK.
And sure enough, next week's podcast contains a heartfelt 'thank you so much for contributing, you guys are great and we are so thankful!' and I can relax a little and know that my favourite podcasts will continue.

I know - I'm not proud of it.


Today I clicked a link from Twitter to this article (see pic below). You will note an extremely reasonable - nay, awesome - subscription deal offered by the Boston Globe. You get 5 free articles, or you can subscribe for 99c - for all access, forever! (or possibly for just one year, but either way, awesome).

And I thought: Let's just see how the five articles go first.

Do you pay for stuff online, donate to sites and podcasts, or freeload? Is it freeloading, when the stuff is offered ostensibly free?