Danny Sullivan's blog, written by a search engine and SEO journalist, covers search, Wikipedia, media, and web publishing.
HN commenters link it for his posts on Wikipedia, link spam, and search engines and copyright, with one criticizing his case against cached pages.
If you wanted to learn about SEO then you could always jump in the deep end and setup a small website or blog with a dot.com domain name with some original content around a niche (topic) something small that you know a lot about and try play the Google/bing/yahoo(?) game and aim to get your site ranked well. It will take a while especially with a new 'virgin' site.
The best place to start would be google webmaster Tools. Follow best practices they recommend and go from there. There are loads of articles on SEO, some good, some bad and some erm shady.
Google's algorithm is regularly updated and changes and there is no 100% certified or guaranteed no matter what anyone may say or try to sell you to get to number 1 spot. It is a mixture of luck, links, good original content and more luck. There's no one way to be top and the best is to just jump straight into it and get your hands dirty. Build up experience and go from there.
Some people who I would trust with good SEO advice is Google's Matt Cutts. His blog at http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/ is a good way of keeping in the loop.
For search engine news there is a journalist called Danny Sullivan. His personal blog is http://daggle.com/ and he also blogs at http://searchengineland.com/ He is someone who I would respect with good reporting on search engines.
There's plenty of others too. Google et al are your friends there. They are just a couple that came into my mind.
The only way to stay on top is to follow Google's and…
I had to stop at the 'hate' for cached pages. He doesn't really expand on it at the linked article, either: http://daggle.com/search-engines-permissions-moving-forward-in-copyright-battles-229
In fact, he does not put forth any argument at all. There is talk of the fact that it was indeed ruled 'fair use', and he essentially just disagrees and considers it evil, and expects that to have some weight.
I fundamentally disagree: it is fair use, I have personally found the feature useful more than once, and I really just don't see it as evil. As he mentions, publishers extra-concerned about their content and copyright can opt out; for everyone else, it has let the web be a little more stateful. Letting people disappear controversial content from pages early on in a public backlash just does not strike me as having any benefit.
Or trying to squeeze more money out of a smaller readerbase? http://www.niemanlab.org/2015/03/newsonomics-the-collapse-of-single-copy-sales/
1 cent in 1913 => 24 cents today http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/
I'm not sure how much a single issue costs today, but the cheapest you can get NYT for is 75 cents a day: http://daggle.com/new-york-times-subscription-3480
> I’d love to have three monitors, but Macs support only two.
You can drive three monitors from a Mac Pro:
http://blog.acceleroto.com/2010/08/28/buying-and-setting-up-a-2010-mac-pro-with-3-monitors-read-this-first/
And here's a Macbook Pro driving 4 screens:
http://daggle.com/macbook-pro-multimonitor-4-monitors-at-once-1577
That's already been possible for a few years - http://daggle.com/macbook-pro-multimonitor-4-monitors-at-once-1577
http://daggle.com/closed-unfriendly-world-wikipedia-2853 doesn't work in Opera web browser.