Slashdot Mirror

We can prove that the universe could have happened without God but we can't prove he doesn't exist.

See, people say this a lot but it's just not true. Both the Christian Bible and common Christian belief make significant claims about their God, and none of them have been demonstrated in reality. For instance, a great many Christians believe in the power of intercessory prayer - that is, if someone is (e.g.) undergoing surgery, praying for them will help their health outcomes.

This has been tested and found to be not true.

The Roman Catholic tradition holds that, due to the miracle of substantiation, when you eat a specific cracker and drink some specific wine at a specific time during their ritual, it is literally and in reality transformed into the body and blood of Jesus Christ. This is blatantly false. In fact, my wife, who went to Catholic school from kindergarten on up, didn't realize until high school that she was supposed to literally believe in the miracle of transubstantiation - it just doesn't make any sense, even to children.

The Bible itself has a passage from Jesus saying "Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them." (Matthew 18:19-20). This is, again, blatantly false in both aspects - we cannot do "anything" just by having two people ask for it. And as for the second part - conference rooms full of Christians are no different than conference rooms full of atheists, so that's clearly false for all detectable meanings of "there am I with them".

So while we cannot prove that vague, toothless, non-interventionist Deist gods do not exist (much in the same way that you cannot prove that the invisible intangible dragon in your garage that doesn't leave footprints doesn't exist), we can very much prove that the specific claims made by religion about God do not apply to any real thing that exists. In fact, so far, in terms of specific claims about reality, absolutely zero of the religious claims made about God have turned out to be true. This is, in fact, the most likely reason why apophatic theology has become more popular recently - if you don't make any positive, specific, testable claims about God, those mean and nasty scientists can't disprove them.

"You know what else clone53421 does not have to his credit? he has never written an application that was (and still is) classified as malware/hacker tool by numerous security/malware auditing groups."

APK's application is classified with ZERO THREAT LEVELS (per Computer Associates/CA, who is the source of this? Hahaha, ok). APK's app is rated with no threat, but can be used for the good and the bad (just like ping.exe can be, it can ping a site or issue a ping of death).

Also, the same has happened to the likes of Nir Sofer of Nirsoft and Dr. Mark Russinovich of Microsoft as well with their apps being classified as "'greyware'/malware" also (meaning their apps, like apk's single one, and ping.exe, can be used for the good or the bad. After all, guns don't kill people. Other people do, so it's up to the user how the app is used).

So your "attempt" at putting down APK is a waste of time. Your sources ARE IN QUESTION:

So your main source, which all others based their "opinions" on, was a "reputable company" like CA? LMAO (not, they are infamous for financial scandals, per this article):

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/06/business/the-scandal-that-refuses-to-go-away.html

----

The Scandal That Refuses To Go Away

By GRETCHEN MORGENSON
Published: June 6, 2004

PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT:

"COMPUTER ASSOCIATES, embroiled in one of the nation's longest-running accounting fraud investigations..."

----

No, we all can pretty much surmise at this point that clone53421 is a nobody/done-nothing "ne'er do well" that wastes his time and unemployed life here on slashdot (at most/best).

Clone53421, you are on the ropes and all you have is failed attempts at adhominem attacks, which are being blown away 1 by 1 per the above, and your earlier failures here:

Clone53421's incorrect and only VERY PARTIAL explanation of how to use environmental variables in code:

http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1764066&cid=33378014

Clone53421's utter failure on things networking in his inability to disprove APK's 10 points in favor of HOSTS files:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1755714&threshold=-1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=33265908

Lastly of course, you have clone53421's utter failure here on programming segmented pointers and doing so absolutely safely and portably across different CPU architectures (such as 16-bit x86 ported to 32-bit PowerPC and vice a versa) using straight C, because not only would inline assembly language methods be safer, they would also be faster and guaranteed to work.

You may think so, but apparently even Dalai Lama isn't too fond of atheists and thinks they are no better than religious extremists.

I mean: c'mon, mates, there are so many (already existing) delicious combinations in the Imaginary Property area:

• hardware incarnations that trump copyright
• hardware incarnations that are protected by copyright laws
• copyright-able creations that are also protected by patents
• patentable human beings not yet but almost there!

Why stop here? Why not put aside the common-sense, let the imagination free and come with other niceties as well? Here, lemme try to open a list, by all means please step in and extend it:

• copyright-able patents - a patent which's description is copyrighted: nobody is allowed to publish/reproduce it, in part or whole, without the consent of the owner. For 70 years or more after the inventor's death... as a side-effect, this will lower the social cost related with dealing with submarine patents (all the patents will be, in effect, submarine) or other exceptions (even if beneficial for the society)
• trademark-able copyright - a copyright-able creation should not only be protected against reproductions, but against lookalikes as well (like: JK Rowling being finally able to stop the creation of novels on the theme: child, with powerful enemies, gets around using supernatural powers)
• trademark-able human being - no lookalike-s are allowed. When found, they will be confiscated and destroyed, the punishment against perpetrators is let to the choice of every country/state - Texas is allowed to prefer the death sentence, even if lenient for plain-and-simple patent suits

PS. mods, if you think the above is trollish or flamebite, that's OK. But if you reckon the above is funny, I seriously think there's something wrong with you.

We are sitting here commenting on a Slashdot blog post, which links to a Techdirt blog post, which links to a blogs.journalism.co.uk blog post, which links to this news article.

I skipped the blogs and read the article.

Whoops! :/

That link is related to the recent Wikileaks/Shield Law post. Try this one instead: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/09/01/darpa_vid_search_dough/

We are sitting here commenting on a Slashdot blog post, which links to a Techdirt blog post, which links to a blogs.journalism.co.uk blog post, which links to this news article.

I skipped the blogs and read the article.

The problem with all neutriceuticals is that there's a loophole in the law (at least in the U.S.) that allows them to bypass the FDA testing process. That's why with all of the TV ads, you'll see, "These claims have not been evaluated by the FDA. This product is not intended to cure, prevent, or treat any disease." Basically, they can make any claims they want in the ads, and the products only have to be as effective as PEZ.

Prescription drugs, on the other hand, have to go through clinical trials show at least three things to get FDA approval:

1) Toxicity (i.e., at what level is the drug going to cause an adverse effect)
2) Safety (i.e., testing to assure that the drug's components, at the formulation intended, is safe)
3) Efficacy (i.e., that the drug does what it's intended to do)

For the neutriceutical companies, the problem is that FDA clinical trials are expensive. It's much cheaper to conduct your own study, focus solely on the active ingredient, and tailor the study carefully to only talk about efficacy. And a study by Congress found that there are many neutriceuticals that either contain hazardous contaminants, or else don't contain enough of the active ingredients they're supposed to have to have any effect on health. (You probably won't hear about that at GNC, though.)

The bottom line is this: If a substance is potent enough to have an effect on your health, it's a drug, and is subject to regulation by the FDA. At the very least, the fact that these neutriceuticals aren't subject to testing by the FDA means that, at best, you're taking a placebo (i.e., you'd be better off taking PEZ, since it's cheaper).

Here's one.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/26/science/earth/26star.html

I don't care for politicians on political witch hunts. The resources of the state are virtually infinite and it is easy to get to the wrong answer by brute forcing a case. But I also don't like the fact that every time there is the slightest bit of good news on the warmist side it appears instantly on every forum and news site on the planet. But if I post any thing contrary I get modded down to -5 in seconds. That kind of abuse of the system is just as bad. This was a far bigger story today and not a peep about it. Link

I'm mostly kidding, but isn't there some decent way to weasel around this?

Yes, there is - leave US for some place where laws are written by a somewhat more rational way, compared to frivolous interpretation of a 2000 year old set of texts. Singapore apparently is one such place.

Related:

2010-06-21:
At Google, You're Old and Gray At 40

At a company of about 20,000 full-time employees, there were at last count fewer than 200 formally enrolled Greyglers working to "make Google culture... welcome to people of all ages."

http://gawker.com/5568975/at-google-youre-old-and-gray-at-40

2008-06-22:
New York Times Article about Age Discrimination

"In an industry survey, a majority of technology companies candidly said they would not hire anyone over 40."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/22/weekinreview/22lohr.html?_r=1&oref=slogin%3Cbr%20/%3E

Today, the "border" includes everything within 100 miles of a coastline or Canada or Mexico: Border Sweeps in North Reach Miles Into U.S..

Only 58% of Americans are sure Obama was born in the US: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/21/obama-and-the-birthers-in-the-latest-poll/

Who was the last white president that this happened to?

Who's the last president, this could have happened to and have it matter? As I see it, nobody is sure where Obama was born, but Hawaii says he was born there, so legally he was born in Hawaii.

"The fact of the matter is that racism is endemic within the Tea Party, and if it's not, then its clearly tolerated."

The fact of the matter is that you haven't proven any facts... just made an assertion of your opinion being gospel, and you've failed to back it up with anything other than more opinion.

This is reminiscent of the whole "they called John Lewis a nigger!" accusation, and after months of pouring over video and audio of the rally where it supposedly happened, not one shred of evidence has been found. Even the New York Times finally published a correction stating that no evidence of the accusation has been found.

DARPA funds all sorts of wacky far-future development work in the off chance that some of it actually becomes feasible, and at the very least they try to learn a bit more about how to make a successful flying car, or why it won't work without unobtanium.

U.S. Identifies Vast Mineral Riches in Afghanistan

Coincidence? I think not!

-

Had to click through a few things to actually see it:

http://www.techflash.com/seattle/2010/04/us_marine_corps_general_powerpoint_makes_us_stupid.html

and the original NYT piece:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/27/world/27powerpoint.html?_r=1

both include some brilliant shit, and absolutely nail some of the things I've noticed about what PPT does to your information organization

"What I have issues with it the revisionist painting this as some sinister attempt on part of Microsoft to try to extend and then extinguish Java."

Unfortunately, it's not revisionist. It _was_ their intention, documented and proven in the court.

http://www.nytimes.com/1998/10/22/business/memos-released-in-sun-microsoft-suit.html?sec=&spon=&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_McGeady#Microsoft_trials

Apparently he's not alone in his distaste for powerpoint.

Except that the actual truth is on the exact opposite side of the spectrum.

Fashion industry shows how profitable it is, especially compared to most other industries, and in Fashion industry there are no copyrights or patents. Sure there are trademarks, but no copyrights or patents at all, and they are highly creative and profitable, thus proving your position inconsistent with reality.

Funny you say should that - maybe they could use some of the landfill funk to spray on the evergreen trees along NJ highways. They actually have signs that read "Evergreen trees treated with noxious spray" to keep people from cutting them down for Christmas trees. Unbelievable.

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/12/24/nyregion/the-great-outdoors-a-dose-of-smelly-chemicals-keeps-tree-poachers-away.html

At which point does an entity get to decide that it owns a random word that forms *part* of its name?

Easy, in 1988 when McDonald's counter sues (and wins) against McSleep.

You know your government has tanks, missiles, stealth bombers and is on its way to warships with laser cannons right?

And those tanks, missiles, stealth bombers and other weapons are manned by citizens. I used to be one. While we were joking about it a number of us, including me, argued we'd frag someone giving us a bad order. While I'm no longer in the Army my nephew is in the Marines and I could see him doing it.

Heck even the Chinese had difficulty having it's army fire on civilians during the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989. Commanders for the local army units refused to order soldiers to fire on civilians. Protesters were even cheered on by the police. Communist party bosses were scared the local military units were going to revolt so Beijing called in units from other parts of China. Even then there were reports of sporadic gunfire and interfactional fighting among PLA units.

It's not as easy to get a nation's military to fire on its own citizens as you seem to think. Heck in the Israeli military there are even refuseniks who refuse to take part in the occupation.

Falcon

How about using its position to prevent other online retailers from getting exclusive content? Not the same thing, I'll grant you, but certainly a step in that direction.

If you're connecting an air hose to an IV, there is something really wrong. Any nurse who does something like this is purely incompetent. I know several RNs and talk to a few on a daily basis. It is a somewhat stressful and fast-paced job, but you cannot ethically exceed your working pace. Every nurse should physically trace each tube to its receptacle. If there are two tubes in the vicinity but not even in proximity, extra care should be taken to trace the tube tactilely. The government-protectionist tone here ("Critics say the tubing problem, which has gone on for decades, is an example of how the FDA fails to protect the public.") is absurd and gives you NO excuse to shed the responsibility for your actions.

If these devices can be designed so this can't happen, then designers, manufacturers, etc. are also not taking responsibility for their actions. It's all well and good to point fingers at the end user, but if you built this stuff and you could have made it more foolproof and didn't, you failed too. It is not necessary of even advisable to have a device with only one layer of defense against misuse. This is a design flaw.

For an excellent example of this sort of design failure, see the Therac-25 case. Therac-25 case used to be taught in just about every system design class for a while. Unfortunately, this happened so long ago that programmers and s/w engineers forgot the lesson and a similar problems have happened again.

Everyone who designs anything that gets used by anyone should read The Design of Everyday Things to disabuse themselves of the notion that it's always the fault of the stupid, incompetent, careless, rushing, undertrained user.

Yes, it's harder. No, you can't anticipate everything. But every problem you can prevent is a person not frustrated, something not broken, money not wasted or even a life saved. So even if you can't do it 100% foolproof, it doesn't mean you don't try your damnedest. Because real users are human, frail, imperfect and subject to many, many pressures.

Several high-power professor types go "off the grid" on a backcountry rafting rafting trip. Initially there was some anxiety about being incommunicato, but it fades quickly.

I notice the same. I think about work the first day of a backcountry trip or vacation. But then stop thinking about work by the second day.

Do you have actual PROOF Glenn Beck is making ANYTHING up, or are you just shaking your head in a "me too" fashion here.

Actually when I wrote it I was thinking of this article http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/19/health/19care.html Palliative Care Extends Life, Study Finds By DONALD G. McNEIL Jr. August 18, 2010

McNeil reports, based on a study in the NEJM which I also read, that having an end of life discussion with your doctor actually extends life by several months, and improves quality of life at the end.

He also reports, as everybody who reads the Wall Street Journal editorial page knows, that there was funding for end-of-life counseling in the health care bill, but that Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin and Betsy McCaugh campaigned against it as "death panels," and that provision was defeated.

So at the end of your life, because of these Republicans, you're more likely to wind up demented, in a hospital bed, warehoused in a poorly-staffed nursing home, crippled by a stroke, cognitive abilities gone, kidney dialysis, breathing tube, suffering pain and indignity because you never had an end-of-life discussion with your doctor.

The custom of making things up, like "death panels," to scare people, is more common among those Republicans I cited.

has found no evidence the association or related organizations mishandled the $40 million in federal money they received in recent years.

That's a very specific exoneration; that is, mishandling of funds.

In no ACORN office did employees file any paperwork or do anything illegal on the duo's behalf.

Also extremely specific.

They refer to "edited" and "misleading" ... and "deceptive" and "phony" - in that order - tapes. There is no citation for those claims, and the progression from edited->misleading->deceptive->phony is ... interesting. They're claims about the tapes progressively get worse while no actual information is cited; i.e., they appear to be building their case on their own previously presumed fact.

And the piece ends with this:

One of the activists, James O'Keefe recently pleaded guilty to charges of entering federal property under false pretenses when he attempted to embarrass Senator Mary Landrieu because of her support for national health care legislation.

An unrelated ad-hom attack on the activist; "he was guilty later, so why should we trust him in this one?.

Lastly, your link is old. It's from June. The case is still going on, and there is much more recent news, such as a Federal court ruling against ACORN (your link mentions the decision that has now been overturned, a former ACORN worker pleading guilty of voter fraud ("Maria Miles, 37, of Milwaukee, admitted to submitting multiple voter registration applications for some people and to scheming with other Association of Community Organization for Reform workers to sign people up several times in an effort to meet the organization's voter registration quotas."), etc.

Try this out for reality jackass!

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/08/24/business/midnight-sales-frenzy-ushers-in-windows-95.html

Not to mention the fact that I picked up my copy just a few minutes after midnight in 1995 at Walmart in Lafayette, IN. My copy and that article must have been the result of time travel!

No... that would be the very poor and the very wealthy.

Not quite, at least according to the NY Times polling: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/11/02/us/politics/1102-nat-webPOLL.gif . It may not be the most scientific poll, but it does look like higher income brackets tend to lean more towards Republican candidates.

I agree with you. It's a symbolic thing to reinforce the concept that human life is somehow special.

After all banning research into those particular areas isn't a huge hindrance to _actual_ progress. Heck I'd say the current patent and "modern research" systems are a far bigger hindrance to _actual_ progress. Just look at the recent case where the Alzheimer's Disease researchers actually started sharing lots of data and making more progress ( http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/13/health/research/13alzheimer.html ).

So to me a bit of slowdown in those few areas just to say "human life is special" is a worthwhile sacrifice.

If we don't treat humans as special and better than "normal animals", there would be even fewer reasons for the "homo superiors"/transhumans/AIs" to do so. And the concept of keeping pets and treating them well should be encouraged ;).

This special case concept does not appear "naturally". Doesn't happen with most animals. If you were the size of a mouse your pet cat would maul you or even eat you.

The show must go on. And if it goes on long enough, it might actually turn out that humans are special ;).

Seems we discussed this the other day, you know where this guy gaming 4square with 9 lines of Perl included a link to what he diplomatically (IMHO) called "an impassioned article" in the NYT Fashion & Style section about people who (hmmmm, how to phrase this without being modded flamebait or troll....) are, uhhhhh, friggin morons!

Damn! I tried my best to not call them names, but I just couldn't help myself. We read the NYT article while eating dinner yesterday & we couldn't stop ridiculing the people in --or the author of-- the article. Oh well.

a mosque?

Thanks in advance.

Yours In Astrakhan,
K. Trout

Well, I'm a bit off-topic now but I remember the news reporting findings of mineral resources in Afghanistan.

Fun fun fun...

I am sure a couple of head honchos at Google are banging their heads for not having bought Sun Microsystems when they could.

That's why there are no homosexuals in Iran, they've all been treated with honour and human generosity.

You don't know much about how the burning of trash works do you, or what it can actually do and provide to the community as a whole. The top half of this article is pretty interesting read. The bottom half is just Americans yammering about how things need to be zero waste or it shouldn't be done at all. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/13/science/earth/13trash.html

Don't know about Washington, but it was illegal in Colorado until last year, and still is unless you have a well on your property.

It's apparently still illegal in Utah.

https://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/us/29rain.html?_r=1&em

however, now that we have all sorts of laws regarding working conditions on the books

The fact that corporations and their representatives - and the talking heads of Wall Street - cite those laws as expenses that (to use their words) "drive" corporations offshore to cheaper environments tells me that the need for unions still exists.

Particularly given the fact that those aforementioned talking heads, the USCC, corporate CEOs, etc. have the gall to presume that the American people are not aware that the rigged currency exchange rates and lack of environmental and worker safety/wage laws are why the corporations are going offshore.

If the need for unions was obsolete, then there would be "goodness and light" wherever our corporations went anywhere in the world to build their factories and buy their parts...and you would not read stories of workers afflicted with such horrible working conditions that they would rather commit suicide than face a lifetime of only more of the same.

I'm all for pointing out that the popular translation is probably exaggerated, but it's probably misleading to refer to your literal translation as the "factually correct one." Anyone out there who is actually interested in this should look here: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/weekinreview/11bronner.html?_r=1

Here's the New York Times' conclusion:

So did Iran's president call for Israel to be wiped off the map? It certainly seems so. Did that amount to a call for war? That remains an open question.

Merit pay is GOP concept to fire as many teachers as possible to "shrink the size of government".

Most occupations are merit pay positions. I don't see anything wrong with the suggestion. Do you have an actual argument, or are you just tarring the argument (in your own eyes, at least) by association?

It does seem odd that the biggest proponents of merit pay are NEVER serious advocates of "merit pay" for politicians.

Actually, there are advocates for merit pay among politicians on both sides of the aisle. But that still doesn't address the question: What's wrong with merit pay for teachers? Isn't it better for both the teachers and their students if pay is tied to performance, rather than set by a union mandate?

Oh and he used campaign money to rent hotel rooms for his hookups.

Unless you were there, I don't see how you can make that claim:
" the prosecutors found no evidence that Mr. Spitzer had used public money or campaign funds to pay for his encounters with prostitutes, he said."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/nyregion/07spitzer.html?_r=1&hp

And it's interesting how you left out all the good things he did in his career, not the least of which was taking on the Gambino crime family.

http://www.ag.ny.gov/media_center/2002/jun/jun04a_02.html

Does anyone REALLY care that he got down with some hookers? Are we really still so prude?

According to a recent study, the true economic value of an outstanding kindergarten teacher is somewhere around $320,000 per year. A high school teacher is not worth anywhere near as much. That's because, by the time students get into high school, they are too old for a teacher to change them very much. In order to make a significant difference in a student's life outcome, you have to get to them while they're young.

Wow, I think someone should pay me $750,000 per year to procreate and have children. Get them while they're young and all that.

There are hardly any fields of endeavor where the people asking to provide a service are exempt from scrutiny. ... Would you want to hire the services of a crappy... doctor? Why does the consumer not have access to the data to make an informed decision on whether to accept the services for which they will have to pay for? This is just not fair.

Funny you should mention doctors. In fact the AMA, among other doctors associations, have been opposing releasing performance related data to the public for decades. This includes insurers evaluations, patient evaluations, and performance related data that is already in the possession of public agencies.

Doctors can make a lot of the same claims to "special considerations" as teachers - patients aren't all the same, they (often) can't select their patients, success is strongly affected patient compliance, community support affects patient outcomes, etc. etc. See for example: http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/tag/american-medical-association/ .

It is very common for people providing a service not to want to be scrutinized. But I wonder how many teachers will agree that doctors should also be excluded from review.

At some point in the near future teacher's unions had better wake up realize that reform is essential and come up with effective house-cleaning measures of their own. Stone walling has worked for them fairly well so far, but the union fortress is not so strong that they can beat back all assaults forever.

If there were a market in teacher pay, for example, I'm reasonably certain that a high school physics teacher would make a lot more than a kindergarten teacher.

I think you are badly and dangerously wrong. Correct facts are a prerequisite for a robust debate, and your facts are wrong.

According to a recent study, the true economic value of an outstanding kindergarten teacher is somewhere around $320,000 per year. As in, three hundred and twenty thousand US dollars. A high school teacher is not worth anywhere near as much. That's because, by the time students get into high school, they are too old for a teacher to change them very much. In order to make a significant difference in a student's life outcome, you have to get to them while they're young.

If schools actually start paying their best kindergarten teachers $320,000 per year, then yeah, sure, to hell with unions. Until then, however, I view them as a necessary evil.

Should it be illegal for cartels to set commodity prices?

That is illegal; there's a reason OPEC meetings aren't held in New York, and that LCD makers were fined for collusion (like here; that's from 2008, or here, for the new suit by the state of New York)

It's amazing how free market purists suddenly don't trust the free market when it comes to workers' pay.

I'm not aware of any "free market purists" who think cartels are a good thing. After all, teachers aren't barely-literate manual laborers; they have college degrees - shouldn't they be able to negotiate a salary on their own? If there were a market in teacher pay, for example, I'm reasonably certain that a high school physics teacher would make a lot more than a kindergarten teacher. Instead, in most public systems, pay is determined by seniority and box-checking. (Got a master's degree? Check. Gone to summer course X? Check. Collect for each box checked.)

NYTimes gives a decent rundown of what goes in to ebook pricing, showing that they make about as much profit on a $10 ebook as they do on a $26 hardcover.

They don't give pricing on paperbacks, but going off the numbers they give I'd guess a $10 ebook will give them around double the profit that a $7 mass-market paperback does.

The full article goes on to say the reason for obscenely high ebook prices is quite simple: publishers are set up for dead tree books right now. They could face problems scaling down their current model too quickly, so they're biding time and slowing down ebook adoption by increasing prices.

NYTimes gives a decent rundown of what goes in to ebook pricing, showing that they make about as much profit on a $10 ebook as they do on a $26 hardcover.

They don't give pricing on paperbacks, but going off the numbers they give I'd guess a $10 ebook will give them around double the profit that a $7 mass-market paperback does.

The full article goes on to say the reason for obscenely high ebook prices is quite simple: publishers are set up for dead tree books right now. They could face problems scaling down their current model too quickly, so they're biding time and slowing down ebook adoption by increasing prices.

Can you borrow eBooks from libraries now?

Yup yup! It generally uses ePub, which my nook accepts natively. To my knoweledge, most ereaders out there now can read ePub as well.

... the MSNBC lefty spin vortex ... the NPR Intelligensia Superiore Ruling Class network ... the ABC/NBC/CBS/CNN all-Obama-pats-on-the-back-all-the-time networks ...

Thank you for demonstrating so thoroughly what GPP was talking about.

So there's no leftward lean to traditional MSM outlets?

"An academic study cited frequently showing a liberal media bias in American journalism is The Media Elite,* a 1986 book co-authored by political scientists Robert Lichter, Stanley Rothman, and Linda Lichter. They surveyed journalists at national media outlets such as the New York Times, Washington Post, and the broadcast networks. The survey found that most of these journalists were Democratic voters whose attitudes were well to the left of the general public on a variety of topics, including such hot-button social issues such as abortion, affirmative action, and gay rights. Then they compared journalists' attitudes to their coverage of controversial issues such as the safety of nuclear power, school busing to promote racial integration, and the energy crisis of the 1970s.
The authors concluded that journalists' coverage of controversial issues reflected their own attitudes, and the predominance of political liberals in newsrooms therefore pushed news coverage in a liberal direction. They presented this tilt as a mostly unconscious process of like-minded individuals projecting their shared assumptions onto their interpretations of reality."

You know why Fox exists? Why it has dominating ratings? Because there was such a vacuum in the TV media when it came to anything but left-leaning views that a huge chunk of the public absolutely distrusted what they saw on TV, and a great deal of what they read in papers. And that distrust was warranted considering what we now know... Dan Rather's firing over the faked memos, the New York Times getting pulitzers for guys that basically worked for Joseph Stalin... it's said that nature abhors a vacuum. That's why Fox is so successful. Not because people are suckers, or because of any right-wing conspiracy. If a large part of the public likes beef, but all you'll sell them is chicken, they're going to go elsewhere.

Guys like you seem to think that if you could ban Fox... and Limbaugh and talk radio for that matter.... then suddenly, the scales would fall from people's eyes, and they'd suddenly become liberal. That's part of your problem right there. Fox exists because more Americans are conservative than liberal. The tail isn't wagging the dog here. Ban Fox today, and that same huge portion of American voters aren't going to just submit and watch left-leaning outlets. They're going to go elsewhere and make their own. Blaming Fox for American's conservative views is kind of silly. Fox simply exists because there's a market for them. A large and profitable one.