Am I the only one who assumes the NY Times considered the futility of trying to stop every single 2000-bit hack and is rather trying to change the way intellige

Am I the only one who assumes the NY Times considered the futility of trying to stop every single 2000-bit hack and is rather trying to change the way intelligent consumers of news and culture with disposable income approach the Times, and perhaps quality content generally, online. I think they've done a fair job of trying to handhold users through the transition. I expect the success or failure of the paywall not to depend on the fact of the paywall itself (obviously), but on how easy and frictionless they'll make it to pay. If they can make it graceful enough, I will happily pay for content I know there are loopholes for accessing. If it's a clusterfuck, as with other DRM schemes, I'll either seek out the leaks or give up. I'm hoping they've adopted something like this approach, a slightly more rigorous version of the NPR pledge model, and are relying on the goodwill and intelligence of their readership and not its stupidity.