Reading on-line newspapers

I've written how many newspapers I read per week, ok, and again, 3-5 papers, 4-5 days per week. And those are the print ones. I also read several on-line ones from across the nation. While I read editorials of most of them, I don't routinely read columns or blogs. There aren't any blogs or columns I find captivating enough to read every publication of it.

And the rant here? Simple. What I hate about on-line newspapers are several things you don't find in print newspapers, or at least in the same manner or format. And these are?

First, the format. Ever been to an on-line newspaper? Notice how busy they are trying to present tidbits to everyone's interest. The first thing you have to do is find the navigation bar - and remember all of design of Web pages has been studied for years as an adaption to the design of print media, which is really not about the medium but instinctive human reading habit - and then remember it for that Website.

Then you have to figure out the organization of the Website. They obviously know the main items for the moment have to go on the top third to half of the Web (depending on your screen and browser window size). They know few on-line readers scroll, and most don't even remember to scroll thinking there's more below the bottom of the browser window. So, it's the biggest bang for the buck, as they say.

Then you have to sort out the organization, the what's where of what you want or interested in at the moment. In short, the first time visitor takes 20-30 seconds to get the lay of the layout, what's where. Repeat visitors however, still have to check to see if nothing has changed, however, small, like moving catagories in the organization and on the navigation bar. Then you can focus on the content.

But this is when and where print and on-line papers change. First are the ads. In print, they're there and you can choose to read them or read around them. On-line has two types of ads, those pesky teasers which display all sorts of treats or temptations to click on them, including using animation and video. Except almost all are bad, really bad. Then the on-line ones go one step father.

The stick the ads in your face two ways. The ever-present popups which have been around for a number of years to which all browsers have popup blockers now. But the worst are the new types, ones which display before you can read the article. You have to click "continue" to continue. No print paper keeps pushing an ad in front of you before you can turn the page.

And then the recent one I've found, and on one of my favorite newspaper Websites too, The New York Times, is the history control. When you click the back button, you stay there. Holding down the back button shows the NYT article is listed several times in the history file. That's simply a cheap trick. A print paper doesn't keep you from turning pages or force you back to the same page when you try to turn the page.

Anyway, it's just a rant on the differences. I'll still continue to read both. I have one against print papers, like the price.

Yeah, the price. Last year 5 daily papers cost me about $5. Now they cost $7. Sunday was $8 and now they're $10. They're slowly pricing themselves out of a market, but not me for awhile. I love reading them with breakfast or lunch. There's still something about the print version. So far anyway.

Healthcare Reform

How many of us are getting tired of the continued tirade on healthcare reform, and that's by those in Congress not the media, who themselves are bad enough? Ok, I'm one too, especially reading the latest from the GAO and CBO that it won't reduced costs and will add to the federal budget deficit. But then I listen to the Republicans and their ideas and criticism of the Democratic plan.

Well, my view is simple. If a Republican talks about making it "right", it's about making it profitable for corporations, the health insurance, for-profit hosipitals, drug companies, and down list of them. Republicans only really want your money and the government's money to go to them, and make a profit from it, both the patient and the taxpayer.

That's why when I hear a Republican talk about their healthcare plan for "us" I know it's not about us but about our money. Their plan may sound good, but it's just their words to gloss over the details which hide the reality. Remember the drug plan? And how they sold it as "the right answer", only to find it didn't work. It had the doughnut hole.

It also gave the drug companies far more rights to change the plan during the year when you could only change plans once a year. They would offer you low prices on your drugs, and remember they know what you're taking, and then raise the price after you're in their plan for the year. That's the Republicans for you. Trust them and you'll be screwed.

I can't say much better than the Democrats' plan but what needs to be remembered is that the goal is to improve healthcare for every American. And the reality is that no plan will reduce costs or prices because no one wants to do that, regulate costs and prices. Congress can only regulate the government payout, they can't regulate your share determined by the healthcare providers and insurance companies.

That's because the healthcare industry corporations have both the Republicans and Democrats in their pocket. They've already sealed the deal and you're the victim for your healthcare and your wallet. That's the reality. We have a healthcare industry, not a healthcare system. The healthcare ndustry works for profit with the patients' money. A healthcare system works for everyone, but it's focused on the patient.

To really go after reducing costs, the government will have to do the unthinkable, cut profits and then regulate prices. And we all know they won't do that. It's not that they could or should, which we all know is the only real answer, it's about their political career that's more important to them, disguised in the political rhetoric they espouse for or against any plan. It's about political self-preservation.

It's not about you or the folks they're supposed ot represent, but themselves and the contributors who support their campaigns. It's why nothing significant, let alone real, will be done. Too many politicians and corporations have too much at stake for Congress to really do the right thing for Americans. You and me, and your money and mine, both our personal money and our taxes.

So, when a politician, and this doesn't necessarily exclude the President, says they want to talk about the right healthcare plan, hold onto your wallet and your health. They're certainly not interested in saving your money, securing your medical privacy and providing the best healthcare for you. They're interested in the opposite in the name of being right for you. It's all a lie.

The simple solution

I've written about the problems with my TV cable signal, especially some channels that either pixelate (some call tiling) or go blank, getting either a blank screen or the little box about coming up soon. And I've written about the troubles talking with Comcast or having technicians out to help fix the problem. Well, there was a very simple solution.

When the MLB All-Star game started the screen pixelated for a few minutes and then went blank, not even the please wait sign, nothing. And sure enoough, all of the channels which do the same did the same too. So after about 30 minutes, I recycled the power to the box (which erases the memory, meaning the settings and schedule) several times and got nothing. So after another 30 minutes of that, I gave up and called their 1-888 number and got through to a service representatives.

And lo and behold I got a smart one. After of few minutes of confusion in the conversation and trying things, which I admit is partly my fault - I apologize to her (did then and am now), she had a suggestion. She said, "Can you do me a favor? Turn off the box, disconnect the cable from the wall, reconnect the cable and turn the box back on."

And sure enough it worked. The problem is dust and other things interferring with the signal. She said it seems to be selective with which channels it effects (tiling and blank screens). So, after cleaning the box on the wall (compressed air) again and connecting things up, it's normal again.

So, why didn't I think of that? I don't know. Ok, dumb me. But still, why didn't Comcast before think of it and suggest it? I may be dumb here too, but a collective dumb? Ok, a bit much because I should have know with my experience in real-time satellite system to check cables, but the Comcast people who work with stuff should also have known too.

Anyway, I'll park the rant against Comcast until something else happens. And still apologize to and thank the smart woman who helped me.