[quote=petrw1;164828]Wow....I put in the website of the company I work for that made over $1B in revenue last year and it's value comes in lower than mersenne.org. Guess I'm working for the wrong company[/quote]... but only if the company is as Internet-related as GIMPS. Does it have "Internet" in its corporate name? :smile:

[quote]zinio.com has limited viewing of quite a few magazines. I think you get something like 3 or 4 page zooms, though you might be able to browse thru low resolution images.[/quote]Thanks!

That worked perfectly. (Once we found a computer with Flash installed on it.)

[QUOTE=potonono;164814]zinio.com has limited viewing of quite a few magazines. I think you get something like 3 or 4 page zooms, though you might be able to browse thru low resolution images.[/quote]
What would be really great, in my opinion, would be to be able to "rent" an article. You'd basically post a custom link to an article, which would come from a tracking website. No cookies or anything involved here, and the tracking info would be deleted after a week or so. Every unique hit would be charged to an account opened by the person who posted the article. Maybe around a nickel or so, depending on the people who allowed the publishing. If their account runs out of money, or the clicker really wants to read the article, the clicker could charge it to their own account. Alternately, it'd be cool if it could be tied into an anonymous payment scheme.

I'm sure this already exists in some form, I've seen adverts for "whitepapers," though I've never bought any.

[url]http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/newshome/5401949[/url]

[URL]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7949018.stm[/URL]

[url]http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090320/ap_on_re_us/deadly_spider[/url]

[url]http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/[/url]

[quote=cheesehead;166062][URL]http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090320/ap_on_re_us/deadly_spider[/URL][/quote]I don't think it's quite right to just change the whole article at the URL so that one can't see the original anymore. It now refers to events reported in the earlier version of the article, but by replacing that one makes it impossible for the reader who didn't save a copy to compare the two.

It might have been excusable if the original article had been erroneous, libelous, or otherwise unworthy of preservation, but that seems not the case here. There's no indication that anything in the original article was mistaken at all. The only error was perhaps the first identification by a University of Tulsa animal facilities manager, whose comments about its deadliness were correctly reported AFAIK in yesterday's version of the article. That initial identification has now been called into question by a Tulsa Zoo curator, according to the article version now appearing at the URL.

One wonders if the TU manager's report that "he had destroyed the spider at the urging of a university administrator because of safety concerns" is entirely unrelated to the newspaper's replacement (rather than supplement) of article text that destroys the first version, which had the TU facilities manager's perhaps-too-scary comments.

N-Y-T on f-o-o-d
 

[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/21/dining/21sugar.html?em[/url]

[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/22/weekinreview/22bittman.html?em[/url]

[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/22/opinion/22greenberg.html?em[/url]

[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/22/business/22food.html?em[/url]

[url]http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126941.900-super-clocks-more-accurate-than-time-itself.html?full=true[/url]

[url]http://math-art.net/2008/05/19/the-girl-called-polly-nomial/[/url]