but virtually no new books are release in digital format. I for one read a lot of SF, and if I could get, say, the latest Iain M. Banks on file, I would buy it in an instant. However, I can't, so I have to order the damn hardcover from the UK, wait a million years for it to be delivered, instead of getting my fix in 2 minutes, for a premium that I'd be willing to pay, to read on an ebook reader that I'd be willing to pay dearly too - if I had a great choice of books to read on it.
No, we will see a format war once Amazon has to start considering implementing ePub on the Kindle (because they can no longer ignore other stores, that only carry their books in ePub or DRMed mobi (which doesn't work on the Kindle, because its mobi DRM implementation is different from the standard mobi implementation, even though they own Mobipocket. Can you spell "lock-in"?), or because they want to be able to sell books to people who don't own a Kindle.
Anyway, ePub can technically already do typesetting, as far as that goes in reflowable formats, through CSS. Mobipocket's typesetting possibilities suck. The format is outdated, and although it can be upgraded, it should just go the way of the dodo.
That said, for any book requiring footnotes (endnotes work in ePub), you will need PDF, as I know of no other format that will display them. Reflowable footnotes would be really neat, and are technically possible in ePub, but there is no working implementation yet.
While I realise you probably live in the USA, where everything can be defended as "free speech", in the "real world" of forum and wiki administration there are some behaviors that need to be banned for, such as repeated trolling, spamming porn links, etc, that otherwise can make a forum/open community unbearable to work in.
If you show repeatedly (for years now, I imagine) that you have no interest whatever in making positive contributions, but you still keep coming back to troll or vandalize other people's work, banning seems like a very good punishment. Let the childish fucks that are apparently unable to discourse civilly because of their religion stew in their own little world.
Having to time and time again revert edits tires out even the biggest community (especially considering the amount of people who are watching articles like that are probably not all that common), as it is no more than a waste of time. Also, given the Hive mentality of Co$, I doubt if it matters much if you screen out the dumb fucks who are kept in compouds; the ones that are allowed to roam free (Tom cruise) are the dangerous ones.
The FLDS Church teaches the doctrine of plural marriage, which states that a man having multiple wives is ordained by God; the doctrine requires it in order for a man to receive the highest form of salvation. It is generally believed in the church that a man should have a minimum of three wives to fulfill this requirement.[43] Connected with this doctrine is patriarchal doctrine, the belief that wives are required to be subordinate to their husbands.
The church currently practices placement marriage, whereby a young woman of marriageable age is assigned a husband by revelation from God to the leader of the church, who is regarded as a prophet.[44] The prophet elects to take and give wives to and from men according to their worthiness. This is also called the law of placing. [...]
On November 7, 2007, the Washington County Attorney's Office released video of jailhouse conversations between Nephi and Warren Jeffs. In the videos Warren renounces his prophethood, claiming that God had told him that if he revealed that he was not the rightful prophet, and was a "wicked man", he would still gain a place in the telestial kingdom.[19] Jeffs also admits to what he calls, "immoral actions with a sister and a daughter" when he was 20 years old.[20] Other records show that while incarcerated, Jeffs tried to commit suicide by banging his head against the walls and trying to hang himself.
As you can see, these communities with entirely different value systems still exist. Why else would he feel the need to put out such an idiotic video, in which he claims that "because he had sex with family he can't be the Rightful Prophet, so y'all should follow this other guy now, because he is"?
So sure you can leave, if your denomination is accepting enough.
However, if you're part of some sort of logging community living in Alberta, or part of that sick group ruled by Warren Jeffs, you'll probably be raised in such a way that you either won't know/dare to doubt "your community's" rules, or, if you're male, you'll be so happy with the kickbacks (the fact that women are raised to think they only exist to serve males, and how they're forced to marry some 35-65yo when they reach age 14) that you won't want to leave. And consider here that the cult that Jeffs ruled consisted of more than a thousand males, and had some 10.000 members (men/women/children) total. This is not small sect we're talking about, and the authorities have known about them for years, but nobody can do anything about it (or will). It's just ignored, and these fuckers are left to do whatever they want to whoever they can get their hands on.
The only reason you were able to leave yours, and/or realise that "this life wasn't for you", is because there aren't enough places in the West left that are remote enough for these systems of indoctrination to succeed at what they're trying to accomplish. We should consider ourselves lucky that this is the case.
However, the "evil conspiracy against children" is something very real (and is part of the reason why religious expression should be kept from the schooling system, so that parents cannot try to raise their children in such a way that they start believing that "religion is the only way"), so I don't think it's being quite fair to yourself to say that "all indoctrination is equal" as you argue here. Raising your daughters in such a way that all they know is that they've been created in order to serve whoever you decide to wed them to when they reach puberty (yes, this kind of thing still happens, and is almost impossible to prevent in some states) is whole fucking worlds apart from "indoctrinating" your kids to believe that rabbits shouldn't be eaten, and arguing that that's a "fair" equation is callous (as well as inaccurate) in the extreme.
Yes, "everything is indoctrination", but no, not everything is equally bad.
Unlike glucose, fructose is almost entirely metabolized in the liver. "When fructose reaches the liver," says Dr. William J. Whelan, a biochemist at the University of Miami School of Medicine, "the liver goes bananas and stops everything else to metabolize the fructose." Eating fructose as compared to glucose results in lower circulating insulin (pancreatic beta cell insulin release is controlled only by blood glucose levels) and leptin levels, and attenuation in the suppression of ghrelin postprandially.[53] These hormones are implicated in the control of appetite and satiety, and it is suspected that eating large amounts of fructose increases the likelihood of weight gain.[54]
Excessive fructose consumption is also believed to contribute to the development of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.[55]
Also, consider this Newscientist article, this one, and if you want more, have a look at an article published in "The Journal of Clinical Investigation" about a link between HFCS and Diabetes in April.
If those are the kind of arguments you're having with your spouse, I'd prefer being divorced.
If there's anything I hate more in those "discussions" "people have while married" it's those flower petal counting lines.
Sure, she might ask this "question" at some time when they're moody during pregnancy (or somesuch), but if you and your spouse really have nothing more tangible to argue about during fights than "do you love me", then you probably don't anyway. You probably love the idea that you're married, or are very attached to that part of your identity, but you don't love the person you're married to at all.
At least fight over how you never talk to each other anymore, or over how the both of you only see each other during PTA meetings, so that you can talk to each other about why you don't have anything more in common than "the kids" (or whatever); but asking for (conveniently unverifiable except through behavior/intent, which at that time apparently is lacking) "proof" of sincerity just means that you haven't the faintest what goes on in the other's head.
I'd rather become a monk than have such an empty, we-both-don't-really-know-eachother-as-we-have-different-friends,-and-husbands-and-wives-aren't-supposed-to-be-eachothers-friends marriage of convenience. Either you consider your partner a partner, and not your "spouse" (that is, someone of the gender you're supposed to be married to, and "love" but "can't understand"), or you don't marry.
But then, this guy that this/. story is about (although I haven't the faintest why he's relevant) writes for Esquire, and those rags make their fortune by ensuring men and women stay apart, so that they can write "interesting"/"insightful" stories about how men and women live in different worlds (never mind that that's by choice), and how the twain shall never meet, "encouraging" (read:forcing) both to read in magazines about what the other wants. (just have a look at the 20 different "read about the 25 best ways to sexually satisfy your lover now & forever, only in blabla magazine" front pages you find in the supermarket every month: it's never "just ask your partner")
So no, this guy isn't crazy to submit to this test, as the outcome of the test doesn't matter. The test is meaningless, and if your spouse abuses you over meaningless stuff she "learnt" about you in Esquire, and takes this to be the gospel truth, then she's not someone you should want to be married to.
Then again, you shouldn't want to be this kind of journalist either, so they'd probably be meant for each other. Anyway, if "what was said by my $girlfriend/$magazine_of_choice about you" comes between you and your spouse, your love life is uninteresting to the point of irrelevant. (at least to me.)
The more interesting question to me is why the fuck we should care about this "man".
FFS, he writes for esquire. He's a nobody. This isn't a controlled study. Why do I care what/who some sod with a kid loves?
An element of Hadopi which hasn't received much or enough attention as yet, is a section which specifies steps that can be taken by computer users to ensure that they will not be found liable under the new regime. The following is a rough translation of the relevant sections, taken from the text of the law in its current state, as found here. Bear with me, it is torturous, some explanatory notes are added in bold...
Art. L. 331-30. â" After consultation with those developing security systems designed to prevent the illicit use of access to a communication service to the public online (internet!), or electronic communications, people whose business it to offer access to such a service (ISPs) as well as those companies governed by title 2 of the book (Intellectual Property Code) and rightsholders organizations (ie SACEM etc), the High Authority will make public the pertinent functional specifications that these measures must comprise so as to be considered, in its eyes, as valid exoneration of the responsibility of the access subscriber (internet user!) as defined in article L. 336-3. At the end of a certified evaluation procedure, and taking into consideration conformity with the specifications set out in the previous paragraph and their effectiveness, the High Authority will issue a list certifying the security software whose use will validly exonerate the access holder (internet user!) from their responsibility under the terms of article L. 336-3. This certification will be periodically revised.
Mmmh. So what the law intends is to set up a meeting between consultation with security software vendors, antipiracy organizations and ISPs to decide what software you need to install on your machine, so that they can be sure that you behave yourself. If you don't fancy installing their device, then you'll just have to swallow any liability consequent to someone else using your machine or accessing your connection.
Art. L. 336-3. â" The access holder to an online service of communication to the public (internet!) or electronic communications is obliged to ensure that thus access is not used for purposes of reproduction, display, making available, or communication to the public, of works protected by copyright or a neighboring right, without the authorisation of the holders of those rights set out in books 1 and 2 (of the Intellectual Property Code), where required.
Failure to satisfy the obligation set out in the preceding paragraph can result in a punishment according to the conditions defined by article L. 331-25. No sanction can be taken regarding the access holder in the following cases: 1. If the access holder (internet user!) installed on of the security systems appearing on the list mentioned in the second paragraph of article L. 331-30; 2. If the attack on the rights set out in the first paragraph of the present article is the work of a person who has fraudulently used the access to the online communication service; 3. In case of force majeure. The failure of the access holder to the obligation defined in the first paragraph will not have the effect of imposing criminal liability.
Apart from finding the last paragraph a bit puzzling â" the list of exceptions exempts from all liability, the coda refers only to criminal liability â" and the language atrocious, it's obvious the whole framework is mad and unacceptable. Imposing such strict liability unless users agree to install spyware, almost certainly connected to remote databases, is intrusive as well as dangerous.
How can this not amount to a wholesale surveillance of online activity? Who will have access to the data collected and transmitted by these 'security systems' (sic), and how will that access be managed? Will the security systems be transp
I'm confused. What made this a "trek" movie? The fact that they put in the accents? Because to me it was just an "action movie in space", and very little with Starfleet.
Sure, there was a "Fear corrupting the timeline" reference/joke, but what more was there? You basically saw no meaningful interaction between Kirk/Bones/Spock, just a bunch of confrontations, after which the movie hurried along to the next action scene. there was some rowdy stuff in a bar, there was a sex joke/something (with the green chick and uhura) that reminded me more of yet another college 'humor' film than Trek, and there was pointless driving around in cars and motorcycles, to make Kirk seem like a player. But what was there to remind anyone of a civilization/culture that was about space exploration, in stead of, say, police academy? (And what happened to the Utopia Planetia shipyards?) Where was the backstory?
OTOH, there was the guy that roamed the universe not destroying anything for 25 years (why?+yawn@his plight/pain), Spock and Scotty were on the same planet (how+why?), and there was a "Romulan" ship - which looked like an idiotic can opener - that doesn't explode when big ships ram it, but does when a little ship flies into it. (why?) Further, there was katana fighting and orbital skydiving.(huh?) The amount of text in this flick was pretty minimal, with Scotty/Sulu/Checkov getting few lines beyond their introduction, and Kirk & Spock really only talking for the first time when they were slugging it out after barbs that were at the highschool level, (my 12yo sister has more control over herself than "Spock" the tormented guy) there were vulcan kids bullying others (Abrams wanting to mock the superior people who have emotional control? yawn), but there is still nothing that reminded me of Star Trek. A review I saw somewhere mentioned Pike as a "father figure", but you only see him twice, and interacting with Kirk only once; the same goes for pretty much everything: it's all in the interest of making an action flick.
Lastly, I'm tired of fight scenes where bad guys catch but then don't finish off good guys. If you want "believable", just don't let them get caught. This plot device where the bad guy suddenly goes "shit, I'm suddenly distracted by something else, so I'm going to let you live so that you can finish me off in a few minutes" is just crap, and was a boring plot device even before James Bond happened.
Basically, although the plot holes were slightly less annoying than in Nemesis, this was (imho) only the case because of the fast pace of the movie, which doesn't really give you time to wonder. But really, there was hardly any meat to the story. And while it isn't necessarily worse than most summer action flicks out there, it isn't a grain better either; more importantly, it had nothing to do with Star Trek to me.
Don't forget about the fact that, with the iLiad/DR1000S, you can annotate/write/underline/etc. in/on PDFs with a stylus (although I found the supplied stylus fairly imprecise, you can replace that by another pen, like the Cross Executive (Capless) pen); something I find very useful while studying/reading. That said, the iLiad probably does lack something by way of user-friendliness, (compared to the Kindle) and is more expensive (although, if you don't care about WiFi, getting the Book Edition will lower the price significantly), but at least you can properly read (that is, with highlighting/underlining 'support') PDFs on it, as The KindleDX currently does not support bookmarking/highlighting in PDFs, only in their own DRM-able (although the DRM is removed fairly easily) Mobipocket-derived format.
Furthermore, they seem to be uninterested in supporting ePub on the Kindle (which probably has something to do with the fact that people could then go elsewhere to get DRMed content, rather than being forced to buy all their DRMed content at Amazon). Also, the Kindles do not support folders, so whether you have 40 files or 4000, you'll have to scroll through the lot alphabetically to get to whatever title you're looking for. Wonderful, that.
Finally, considering the total storage is only 3.2GB for the KindleDX with no expansion slot, having many scanned PDFs (with filesizes of 50MB+) is not an option either. (the iLiad supports CF cards up to 32GB.)
Having said that, there number of titles on offer as ebooks by textbook publishers is still very limited, so trusting that Amazon will make sure all course materials necessary in every university that participates in this pilot project would be a fairly gullible thing to do, which means that, if you have to buy the DX yourself, you have to factor in the facts that 1. you won't be able to resell books, and 2. you will probably still have to buy books in hardback, at the "normal" prices (supposedly the ebook texts will be slightly cheaper, but still very expensive.
On a sidenote, quite a few titles can be found on the darknet already, and most of the titles that are available "for free" are offered as PDFs, or HTML ebooks (which can be converted), so a big screen (like the KindleDX, the iLiad and the DR1000 have) is very handy when it comes to reading those fixed-size, non-reflowable ebooks.
The Kindle DX at least has the size going for it (it's bigger than the iLiad, but smaller than the DR1000, although the latter (still?) offers a fairly bad battery life), but I still wouldn't want it, simply because the fact that you aren't able to highlight anything on it, unless you buy from Amazon.
If it didn't work, why would Big Pharma be spending lots of money on getting these journals printed by a "reputable" publisher, rather than Merck Printing, LLC?
You need to keep in mind that there is a fair bit of difference between the "scientific community" and "your average GP" (which is who they are targetting with these publications.)
Also, remember that the guy who is the head editor of Chaos, Solitons and Fractals has been printing his own stuff (which is crap) for something like 17 years now, and went unnoticed until last year. (See also this/. article which starts with:
It is well known among scientists that the impact factor of a scientific journal is not always a good indicator of the quality of the papers in the journal. An extreme example of this was recently uncovered in mathematics. The scandal is about one El Naschie, editor in chief of the 'scientific' journal Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, published by Elsevier. This is one of the highest impact factor journals in mathematics, but the quality of the papers in it is extremely poor. The journal has also published 322 papers with El Naschie as (co-)author, five of them in the latest issue.
So yes, there are ways to prevent this (in the end), but do you really want to let Elsevier get away with this behavior, especially considering they hide crap journals like this in "package deals" that you can only buy or reject wholesale? Or do you want to spend that 4500$ per journal on something more useful? Imagine how much money is lost world-wide to crap like this.
1. Shares Cost Money (so it's about wealth distribution, not income distribution)
In the United States at the end of 2001, 10% of the population owned 71% of the wealth, and the top 1% controlled 38%. On the other hand, the bottom 40% owned less than 1% of the nation's wealth. (diff article):
Additionally, income does not capture the extent of wealth inequality. Wealth is derived over time from the collection of income earnings and growth of assets. The income of one year cannot encompass the accumulation over a lifetime. Income statistics view too narrow a time span for it to be an adequate indicator of financial inequality. For example, the Gini coefficient for wealth inequality increased from 0.80 in 1983 to 0.84 in 1989. In the same year, 1989, the Gini coefficient for income was only 0.52.[9] The Gini coefficient is an economic tool on a scale from 0 to 1 that measures the level of inequality. 0 signifies perfect equality and 1 represents perfect inequality. From this data, it is evident that in 1989 there was a discrepancy about the level of economic disparity with the extent of wealth inequality significantly higher than income inequality.
(see wiki).
or see this
So no, I don't care about the 40% of the population that might have 1 share in BP.
I see. So by your logic, if there were no taxes, there wouldn't be any profits made either, as "people" wouldn't have to pay those too, as those poor "businesses" would feel morally obliged not to make people pay more than the product is worth.
How I hate idiotically reductionist arguments.
So yes, I do think businesses pay taxes, as they would just reap even higher profits, with most of the profits going to those select few that own stock already (which is a pretty small and rich group already, as they wouldn't stock otherwise).
OTOH, and what you're ignoring in your silly presentation, imagine how few people would be able to afford anything if government wouldn't be doing any of the tasks that it is. Hardly any trade going on between places, as nobody would be able to afford the initial investment in a "national" road scheme, no utilities (same reason), no education (as it's not in the short term interest of the corporate state+would lower dividends, also because the bureaucracy that would be needed to administer everything wouldn't exist), most of the population pretty much imprisoned in their homes, (as they wouldn't be able to afford the toll fees on the private roads,) no big corporations (because of all the petty squabbles going on).
Yes, I can see how your state would work.
Private citizens would never be able to pay for all that, all the profits would go to a tiny upper class where the wealth would be concentrated more and more (because they wouldn't have to pay any taxes at all), and after 30 years you're back in feudal Europe, (one might argue this was already going on before the credit crisis happened). Not taxing the part of the population that has the capability to invest in these "shares", (considering how few people are actually able to be part of this class you'd be talking about an every-shrinking group) thus making sure there is a tax-exempt class in society, is discriminatory, and more importantly, patently foolish, as it will only get you enormous amounts of resentment, and an October revolution.
Politicians hardly tax businesses at all in the USA (corporate taxation amounts for less than 25% of income tax, whereas in Europe they pay at least double that %age), as that is where their bread is buttered.
What's so disturbing is that you're turning this around 180 degrees to say that they're already "over-taxed", and should be paying even less. Businesses should pay taxes, as shareholders don't deserve the dividends they're getting for free, where those who need to work to get food for their family (and no, McD food doesn't count) have to give up a far higher proportion of their (in)disposable income to the government so that shareholders get to pay less.
Am I the only person left on earth that like and often prefers to read things printed on dead trees?
Hardly.
I mean, yes, for a living, I stare at a computer all day. I read on it all day, BUT, I often take things that are important, that I want to remember and quickly refer to and print them off. I wouldn't be interested in a kindle, I like to read real books, ones that I can dogear and whatever.
0. eInk is not at all comparable to TFTs/LCDs/CRTs. It's a stable image, with contrast approaching normal printed text even now.
1. You can bookmark on kindles (and other readers) as well.
2. You can even make 1 file per 'printed bit of information', and still keep it organized (in 'file folders' etc)
3. Sure, currently the opening times aren't in real time yet, but in a 3rd gen or later device i imagine they'll be fast enough to be at least as quick as first having to find a piece of paper in a humongous stack (say, 50 printed research papers of 30-40p each).
I find that when I have things I"ve printed off, I often doodle on the pages and mark or highlight things.
Have a look at, say, the DR1000, or the coming PlasticLogic reader. at least the iRex device has a wacom pen that allows you to scribble in pdfs/image files.
I find that like when I was taking notes in school, I can picture in my head the exact page with doodles and all on what I'm trying to look up or remember.
You realise that with very little extra effort you'd be able to attach tags or whatnot to bookmarked passages, or have the reading program spit out all bookmarked/underlined/marked passages into a different file that links back to the main file, etc.?
I can't seem to do the same thing with a computer screen.
Which is why eReaders aren't pc screens without tablet functionality built in (although those touchscreen PCs as displayed by Jeff Han, or in the latest James Bond film or Knight Rider (2008) might allow you to do similar things).
That and for a newspaper, and granted these days I only get the Sunday paper, but, I like it for the coupons I can clip. I like to take out the store ads for BB and other places, take them with me when I go shopping.
So, advertising will change. Shops will have to in order to survive. Just Be Patient.
And frankly, how the hell are you supposed to start the charcoal in the 'chimney' starter without newspaper?
You've missed this story then?
Sadly, the blog that was initially involved in this, and where the 'riddle' was solved, seems to have removed the entire blog post + comments (lawyers?), but the posts can still be found here
and what percentage of authors prefers not being read, exactly? Your argument that "there are people that might want their works to go OOP" seems fairly misleading, as the usual case (and the problem is far more often that a publisher will refuse to reprint it, for cost concerns or otherwise.
And it's hardly as though those authors have much choice in the matter.
So no, this is *not* the issue. Yours is just a fringe case.
Google isn't contacting you because you're too small fry.
Anyway, what I don't get is what this summary means. Is it talking about "censorship", about porn, or about digital rights management/copyright issues. The summary seems to vacillate between either of those interpretations, and most people here immediately seem to assume "censorship", but I don't really see how they can conclude that with any degree of certainty.
Reading the article (which is pretty badly written) it seems to be about "porn" mostly, but they fail to explain why we are supposed to care, or why the fact that google has a non-exclusive deal with the AG makes the current situation worse. Apparently they're blaming Google for not having competitors, which seems pretty stupid.
Right now those orphaned (and other) books aren't accessible, nor in the PD, and this won't change if Google partially publishes and partially censors them (as they still won't be PD), but apparently if google censors them there will be no other way for us whatever to access those books, which seems something of a stretch. (but hey, sensationalist journalism is great. It's almost as though they've confused GOOG for MSFT, the twits.)
Secondly, the auction house idea seems even more legally untenable than this deal with the AG is.
Lastly, what is the relevance of P.K. Dick's estate to the discussion, other than as a name?
And what's that exactly? That Vista/Win7 represents "progress"?
That those apps have been badly designed?
That they want to dump legacy support, because it is forcing them to build an insecure OS?
Or rather, as kdawson would want you to believe, that MS is to blame for Global Warming?
Virtualization is so much better as a "compatibility solution" than "compatibility mode" that I'm almost shocked they've thought of it.
I'd already imagined how I could run WinXP in VMWare in the future to play old games on (since my current HW will support that easily, and it seems much better than dual-boot, but this would be even better: A transparant VM.
All Hail MS.
How to make a movie that deals in a pompous manner with inanities like "superheroes aren't necessarily always good" and "if you're really clever, you might become a bit of a sociopath" (or alternatively "the only way to unite human kind is by perpetrating 9/11, I mean, make them hate another guy more")? Because the Romans knew that already, if not the Greeks and Persians. Anyway, the movie was ok (apart from the moronic sex joke) right up until the end, when all was "revealed". (I haven't read the comics, no, nor will I) The only guy who was remotely interesting was inkblob, butapart from him? Where is the re-watch value?
Perhaps the most important aspect of Sweden's concessions to Germany during the Second World War was the extensive export of iron ore to be used in the German weapons industry, reaching ten million tons per year. The Swedish neutrality policy meant that the government could not interfere with the trade. As Germany's preparations for war became more apparent and the risk of another war became obvious, international interest in Swedish ore increased. At the time, British intelligence estimated that German industry relied heavily on Swedish iron ore and a decrease or halt in Swedish ore exports could have been disastrous for German military efforts. This is a contentious view that has been debated in the aftermath of the war.
Hardly a run of the mill notion of neutrality, wouldn't you say (although, I seem to recall reading in a source I can't remember that the US also kept up trades with germany until PH)
Considering bad cops, good criminals, and other assorted people that would like to either frame you or draw attention away from them are hardly few and far between (especially in the future, once DNA evidence checking becomes more commonplace through databases such as this one), how long do you think it will be before this is a marvellous way to implicate innocents?
Slashdot Mirror
but virtually no new books are release in digital format. I for one read a lot of SF, and if I could get, say, the latest Iain M. Banks on file, I would buy it in an instant. However, I can't, so I have to order the damn hardcover from the UK, wait a million years for it to be delivered, instead of getting my fix in 2 minutes, for a premium that I'd be willing to pay, to read on an ebook reader that I'd be willing to pay dearly too - if I had a great choice of books to read on it.
Try Fictionwise (Matter is the book you're looking for, I take it?), or BooksOnBoard. Admittedly the amount of books offered isn't very large yet, but there are some efforts being made, and esp. scifi/fant is already fairly well available.
No, we will see a format war once Amazon has to start considering implementing ePub on the Kindle (because they can no longer ignore other stores, that only carry their books in ePub or DRMed mobi (which doesn't work on the Kindle, because its mobi DRM implementation is different from the standard mobi implementation, even though they own Mobipocket. Can you spell "lock-in"?), or because they want to be able to sell books to people who don't own a Kindle.
Anyway, ePub can technically already do typesetting, as far as that goes in reflowable formats, through CSS. Mobipocket's typesetting possibilities suck. The format is outdated, and although it can be upgraded, it should just go the way of the dodo.
That said, for any book requiring footnotes (endnotes work in ePub), you will need PDF, as I know of no other format that will display them. Reflowable footnotes would be really neat, and are technically possible in ePub, but there is no working implementation yet.
Actually, if this is real, I would like it if the ADL sues for the shoah's name being used in vain :p
While I realise you probably live in the USA, where everything can be defended as "free speech", in the "real world" of forum and wiki administration there are some behaviors that need to be banned for, such as repeated trolling, spamming porn links, etc, that otherwise can make a forum/open community unbearable to work in.
If you show repeatedly (for years now, I imagine) that you have no interest whatever in making positive contributions, but you still keep coming back to troll or vandalize other people's work, banning seems like a very good punishment. Let the childish fucks that are apparently unable to discourse civilly because of their religion stew in their own little world.
Having to time and time again revert edits tires out even the biggest community (especially considering the amount of people who are watching articles like that are probably not all that common), as it is no more than a waste of time. Also, given the Hive mentality of Co$, I doubt if it matters much if you screen out the dumb fucks who are kept in compouds; the ones that are allowed to roam free (Tom cruise) are the dangerous ones.
The FLDS Church teaches the doctrine of plural marriage, which states that a man having multiple wives is ordained by God; the doctrine requires it in order for a man to receive the highest form of salvation. It is generally believed in the church that a man should have a minimum of three wives to fulfill this requirement.[43] Connected with this doctrine is patriarchal doctrine, the belief that wives are required to be subordinate to their husbands.
The church currently practices placement marriage, whereby a young woman of marriageable age is assigned a husband by revelation from God to the leader of the church, who is regarded as a prophet.[44] The prophet elects to take and give wives to and from men according to their worthiness. This is also called the law of placing.
[...]
On November 7, 2007, the Washington County Attorney's Office released video of jailhouse conversations between Nephi and Warren Jeffs. In the videos Warren renounces his prophethood, claiming that God had told him that if he revealed that he was not the rightful prophet, and was a "wicked man", he would still gain a place in the telestial kingdom.[19] Jeffs also admits to what he calls, "immoral actions with a sister and a daughter" when he was 20 years old.[20] Other records show that while incarcerated, Jeffs tried to commit suicide by banging his head against the walls and trying to hang himself.
As you can see, these communities with entirely different value systems still exist. Why else would he feel the need to put out such an idiotic video, in which he claims that "because he had sex with family he can't be the Rightful Prophet, so y'all should follow this other guy now, because he is"?
So sure you can leave, if your denomination is accepting enough.
However, if you're part of some sort of logging community living in Alberta, or part of that sick group ruled by Warren Jeffs, you'll probably be raised in such a way that you either won't know/dare to doubt "your community's" rules, or, if you're male, you'll be so happy with the kickbacks (the fact that women are raised to think they only exist to serve males, and how they're forced to marry some 35-65yo when they reach age 14) that you won't want to leave. And consider here that the cult that Jeffs ruled consisted of more than a thousand males, and had some 10.000 members (men/women/children) total. This is not small sect we're talking about, and the authorities have known about them for years, but nobody can do anything about it (or will). It's just ignored, and these fuckers are left to do whatever they want to whoever they can get their hands on.
The only reason you were able to leave yours, and/or realise that "this life wasn't for you", is because there aren't enough places in the West left that are remote enough for these systems of indoctrination to succeed at what they're trying to accomplish. We should consider ourselves lucky that this is the case.
However, the "evil conspiracy against children" is something very real (and is part of the reason why religious expression should be kept from the schooling system, so that parents cannot try to raise their children in such a way that they start believing that "religion is the only way"), so I don't think it's being quite fair to yourself to say that "all indoctrination is equal" as you argue here. Raising your daughters in such a way that all they know is that they've been created in order to serve whoever you decide to wed them to when they reach puberty (yes, this kind of thing still happens, and is almost impossible to prevent in some states) is whole fucking worlds apart from "indoctrinating" your kids to believe that rabbits shouldn't be eaten, and arguing that that's a "fair" equation is callous (as well as inaccurate) in the extreme.
Yes, "everything is indoctrination", but no, not everything is equally bad.
Unlike glucose, fructose is almost entirely metabolized in the liver. "When fructose reaches the liver," says Dr. William J. Whelan, a biochemist at the University of Miami School of Medicine, "the liver goes bananas and stops everything else to metabolize the fructose." Eating fructose as compared to glucose results in lower circulating insulin (pancreatic beta cell insulin release is controlled only by blood glucose levels) and leptin levels, and attenuation in the suppression of ghrelin postprandially.[53] These hormones are implicated in the control of appetite and satiety, and it is suspected that eating large amounts of fructose increases the likelihood of weight gain.[54] Excessive fructose consumption is also believed to contribute to the development of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.[55]
Also, consider this Newscientist article, this one, and if you want more, have a look at an article published in "The Journal of Clinical Investigation" about a link between HFCS and Diabetes in April.
If those are the kind of arguments you're having with your spouse, I'd prefer being divorced.
If there's anything I hate more in those "discussions" "people have while married" it's those flower petal counting lines.
Sure, she might ask this "question" at some time when they're moody during pregnancy (or somesuch), but if you and your spouse really have nothing more tangible to argue about during fights than "do you love me", then you probably don't anyway. You probably love the idea that you're married, or are very attached to that part of your identity, but you don't love the person you're married to at all.
At least fight over how you never talk to each other anymore, or over how the both of you only see each other during PTA meetings, so that you can talk to each other about why you don't have anything more in common than "the kids" (or whatever); but asking for (conveniently unverifiable except through behavior/intent, which at that time apparently is lacking) "proof" of sincerity just means that you haven't the faintest what goes on in the other's head.
I'd rather become a monk than have such an empty, we-both-don't-really-know-eachother-as-we-have-different-friends,-and-husbands-and-wives-aren't-supposed-to-be-eachothers-friends marriage of convenience. Either you consider your partner a partner, and not your "spouse" (that is, someone of the gender you're supposed to be married to, and "love" but "can't understand"), or you don't marry.
But then, this guy that this /. story is about (although I haven't the faintest why he's relevant) writes for Esquire, and those rags make their fortune by ensuring men and women stay apart, so that they can write "interesting"/"insightful" stories about how men and women live in different worlds (never mind that that's by choice), and how the twain shall never meet, "encouraging" (read:forcing) both to read in magazines about what the other wants. (just have a look at the 20 different "read about the 25 best ways to sexually satisfy your lover now & forever, only in blabla magazine" front pages you find in the supermarket every month: it's never "just ask your partner")
So no, this guy isn't crazy to submit to this test, as the outcome of the test doesn't matter. The test is meaningless, and if your spouse abuses you over meaningless stuff she "learnt" about you in Esquire, and takes this to be the gospel truth, then she's not someone you should want to be married to.
Then again, you shouldn't want to be this kind of journalist either, so they'd probably be meant for each other. Anyway, if "what was said by my $girlfriend/$magazine_of_choice about you" comes between you and your spouse, your love life is uninteresting to the point of irrelevant. (at least to me.)
The more interesting question to me is why the fuck we should care about this "man".
FFS, he writes for esquire. He's a nobody. This isn't a controlled study. Why do I care what/who some sod with a kid loves?
But that proof is not what you think it is
convenient negative definition.
An element of Hadopi which hasn't received much or enough attention as yet, is a section which specifies steps that can be taken by computer users to ensure that they will not be found liable under the new regime. The following is a rough translation of the relevant sections, taken from the text of the law in its current state, as found here. Bear with me, it is torturous, some explanatory notes are added in bold...
Art. L. 331-30. â" After consultation with those developing security systems designed to prevent the illicit use of access to a communication service to the public online (internet!), or electronic communications, people whose business it to offer access to such a service (ISPs) as well as those companies governed by title 2 of the book (Intellectual Property Code) and rightsholders organizations (ie SACEM etc), the High Authority will make public the pertinent functional specifications that these measures must comprise so as to be considered, in its eyes, as valid exoneration of the responsibility of the access subscriber (internet user!) as defined in article L. 336-3.
At the end of a certified evaluation procedure, and taking into consideration conformity with the specifications set out in the previous paragraph and their effectiveness, the High Authority will issue a list certifying the security software whose use will validly exonerate the access holder (internet user!) from their responsibility under the terms of article L. 336-3. This certification will be periodically revised.
Mmmh. So what the law intends is to set up a meeting between consultation with security software vendors, antipiracy organizations and ISPs to decide what software you need to install on your machine, so that they can be sure that you behave yourself. If you don't fancy installing their device, then you'll just have to swallow any liability consequent to someone else using your machine or accessing your connection.
Art. L. 336-3. â" The access holder to an online service of communication to the public (internet!) or electronic communications is obliged to ensure that thus access is not used for purposes of reproduction, display, making available, or communication to the public, of works protected by copyright or a neighboring right, without the authorisation of the holders of those rights set out in books 1 and 2 (of the Intellectual Property Code), where required.
Failure to satisfy the obligation set out in the preceding paragraph can result in a punishment according to the conditions defined by article L. 331-25.
No sanction can be taken regarding the access holder in the following cases:
1. If the access holder (internet user!) installed on of the security systems appearing on the list mentioned in the second paragraph of article L. 331-30;
2. If the attack on the rights set out in the first paragraph of the present article is the work of a person who has fraudulently used the access to the online communication service;
3. In case of force majeure.
The failure of the access holder to the obligation defined in the first paragraph will not have the effect of imposing criminal liability.
Apart from finding the last paragraph a bit puzzling â" the list of exceptions exempts from all liability, the coda refers only to criminal liability â" and the language atrocious, it's obvious the whole framework is mad and unacceptable. Imposing such strict liability unless users agree to install spyware, almost certainly connected to remote databases, is intrusive as well as dangerous.
How can this not amount to a wholesale surveillance of online activity? Who will have access to the data collected and transmitted by these 'security systems' (sic), and how will that access be managed? Will the security systems be transp
I'm confused. What made this a "trek" movie? The fact that they put in the accents? Because to me it was just an "action movie in space", and very little with Starfleet.
Sure, there was a "Fear corrupting the timeline" reference/joke, but what more was there? You basically saw no meaningful interaction between Kirk/Bones/Spock, just a bunch of confrontations, after which the movie hurried along to the next action scene. there was some rowdy stuff in a bar, there was a sex joke/something (with the green chick and uhura) that reminded me more of yet another college 'humor' film than Trek, and there was pointless driving around in cars and motorcycles, to make Kirk seem like a player. But what was there to remind anyone of a civilization/culture that was about space exploration, in stead of, say, police academy? (And what happened to the Utopia Planetia shipyards?) Where was the backstory?
OTOH, there was the guy that roamed the universe not destroying anything for 25 years (why?+yawn@his plight/pain), Spock and Scotty were on the same planet (how+why?), and there was a "Romulan" ship - which looked like an idiotic can opener - that doesn't explode when big ships ram it, but does when a little ship flies into it. (why?) Further, there was katana fighting and orbital skydiving.(huh?) The amount of text in this flick was pretty minimal, with Scotty/Sulu/Checkov getting few lines beyond their introduction, and Kirk & Spock really only talking for the first time when they were slugging it out after barbs that were at the highschool level, (my 12yo sister has more control over herself than "Spock" the tormented guy) there were vulcan kids bullying others (Abrams wanting to mock the superior people who have emotional control? yawn), but there is still nothing that reminded me of Star Trek. A review I saw somewhere mentioned Pike as a "father figure", but you only see him twice, and interacting with Kirk only once; the same goes for pretty much everything: it's all in the interest of making an action flick.
Lastly, I'm tired of fight scenes where bad guys catch but then don't finish off good guys. If you want "believable", just don't let them get caught. This plot device where the bad guy suddenly goes "shit, I'm suddenly distracted by something else, so I'm going to let you live so that you can finish me off in a few minutes" is just crap, and was a boring plot device even before James Bond happened.
Basically, although the plot holes were slightly less annoying than in Nemesis, this was (imho) only the case because of the fast pace of the movie, which doesn't really give you time to wonder. But really, there was hardly any meat to the story. And while it isn't necessarily worse than most summer action flicks out there, it isn't a grain better either; more importantly, it had nothing to do with Star Trek to me.
Don't forget about the fact that, with the iLiad/DR1000S, you can annotate/write/underline/etc. in/on PDFs with a stylus (although I found the supplied stylus fairly imprecise, you can replace that by another pen, like the Cross Executive (Capless) pen); something I find very useful while studying/reading. That said, the iLiad probably does lack something by way of user-friendliness, (compared to the Kindle) and is more expensive (although, if you don't care about WiFi, getting the Book Edition will lower the price significantly), but at least you can properly read (that is, with highlighting/underlining 'support') PDFs on it, as The KindleDX currently does not support bookmarking/highlighting in PDFs, only in their own DRM-able (although the DRM is removed fairly easily) Mobipocket-derived format.
Furthermore, they seem to be uninterested in supporting ePub on the Kindle (which probably has something to do with the fact that people could then go elsewhere to get DRMed content, rather than being forced to buy all their DRMed content at Amazon). Also, the Kindles do not support folders, so whether you have 40 files or 4000, you'll have to scroll through the lot alphabetically to get to whatever title you're looking for. Wonderful, that.
Finally, considering the total storage is only 3.2GB for the KindleDX with no expansion slot, having many scanned PDFs (with filesizes of 50MB+) is not an option either. (the iLiad supports CF cards up to 32GB.)
Having said that, there number of titles on offer as ebooks by textbook publishers is still very limited, so trusting that Amazon will make sure all course materials necessary in every university that participates in this pilot project would be a fairly gullible thing to do, which means that, if you have to buy the DX yourself, you have to factor in the facts that 1. you won't be able to resell books, and 2. you will probably still have to buy books in hardback, at the "normal" prices (supposedly the ebook texts will be slightly cheaper, but still very expensive.
On a sidenote, quite a few titles can be found on the darknet already, and most of the titles that are available "for free" are offered as PDFs, or HTML ebooks (which can be converted), so a big screen (like the KindleDX, the iLiad and the DR1000 have) is very handy when it comes to reading those fixed-size, non-reflowable ebooks.
The Kindle DX at least has the size going for it (it's bigger than the iLiad, but smaller than the DR1000, although the latter (still?) offers a fairly bad battery life), but I still wouldn't want it, simply because the fact that you aren't able to highlight anything on it, unless you buy from Amazon.
You need to keep in mind that there is a fair bit of difference between the "scientific community" and "your average GP" (which is who they are targetting with these publications.)
Also, remember that the guy who is the head editor of Chaos, Solitons and Fractals has been printing his own stuff (which is crap) for something like 17 years now, and went unnoticed until last year. (See also this
It is well known among scientists that the impact factor of a scientific journal is not always a good indicator of the quality of the papers in the journal. An extreme example of this was recently uncovered in mathematics. The scandal is about one El Naschie, editor in chief of the 'scientific' journal Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, published by Elsevier. This is one of the highest impact factor journals in mathematics, but the quality of the papers in it is extremely poor. The journal has also published 322 papers with El Naschie as (co-)author, five of them in the latest issue.
So yes, there are ways to prevent this (in the end), but do you really want to let Elsevier get away with this behavior, especially considering they hide crap journals like this in "package deals" that you can only buy or reject wholesale? Or do you want to spend that 4500$ per journal on something more useful? Imagine how much money is lost world-wide to crap like this.
actually, Gaelic peoples migrated to the north of Spain, not the other way around
In the United States at the end of 2001, 10% of the population owned 71% of the wealth, and the top 1% controlled 38%. On the other hand, the bottom 40% owned less than 1% of the nation's wealth.
(diff article): Additionally, income does not capture the extent of wealth inequality. Wealth is derived over time from the collection of income earnings and growth of assets. The income of one year cannot encompass the accumulation over a lifetime. Income statistics view too narrow a time span for it to be an adequate indicator of financial inequality. For example, the Gini coefficient for wealth inequality increased from 0.80 in 1983 to 0.84 in 1989. In the same year, 1989, the Gini coefficient for income was only 0.52.[9] The Gini coefficient is an economic tool on a scale from 0 to 1 that measures the level of inequality. 0 signifies perfect equality and 1 represents perfect inequality. From this data, it is evident that in 1989 there was a discrepancy about the level of economic disparity with the extent of wealth inequality significantly higher than income inequality.
(see wiki).
or see this So no, I don't care about the 40% of the population that might have 1 share in BP.
I see. So by your logic, if there were no taxes, there wouldn't be any profits made either, as "people" wouldn't have to pay those too, as those poor "businesses" would feel morally obliged not to make people pay more than the product is worth.
How I hate idiotically reductionist arguments.
So yes, I do think businesses pay taxes, as they would just reap even higher profits, with most of the profits going to those select few that own stock already (which is a pretty small and rich group already, as they wouldn't stock otherwise).
OTOH, and what you're ignoring in your silly presentation, imagine how few people would be able to afford anything if government wouldn't be doing any of the tasks that it is. Hardly any trade going on between places, as nobody would be able to afford the initial investment in a "national" road scheme, no utilities (same reason), no education (as it's not in the short term interest of the corporate state+would lower dividends, also because the bureaucracy that would be needed to administer everything wouldn't exist), most of the population pretty much imprisoned in their homes, (as they wouldn't be able to afford the toll fees on the private roads,) no big corporations (because of all the petty squabbles going on).
Yes, I can see how your state would work.
Private citizens would never be able to pay for all that, all the profits would go to a tiny upper class where the wealth would be concentrated more and more (because they wouldn't have to pay any taxes at all), and after 30 years you're back in feudal Europe, (one might argue this was already going on before the credit crisis happened). Not taxing the part of the population that has the capability to invest in these "shares", (considering how few people are actually able to be part of this class you'd be talking about an every-shrinking group) thus making sure there is a tax-exempt class in society, is discriminatory, and more importantly, patently foolish, as it will only get you enormous amounts of resentment, and an October revolution.
Politicians hardly tax businesses at all in the USA (corporate taxation amounts for less than 25% of income tax, whereas in Europe they pay at least double that %age), as that is where their bread is buttered.
What's so disturbing is that you're turning this around 180 degrees to say that they're already "over-taxed", and should be paying even less. Businesses should pay taxes, as shareholders don't deserve the dividends they're getting for free, where those who need to work to get food for their family (and no, McD food doesn't count) have to give up a far higher proportion of their (in)disposable income to the government so that shareholders get to pay less.
Am I the only person left on earth that like and often prefers to read things printed on dead trees?
Hardly.
I mean, yes, for a living, I stare at a computer all day. I read on it all day, BUT, I often take things that are important, that I want to remember and quickly refer to and print them off. I wouldn't be interested in a kindle, I like to read real books, ones that I can dogear and whatever.
0. eInk is not at all comparable to TFTs/LCDs/CRTs. It's a stable image, with contrast approaching normal printed text even now.
1. You can bookmark on kindles (and other readers) as well.
2. You can even make 1 file per 'printed bit of information', and still keep it organized (in 'file folders' etc)
3. Sure, currently the opening times aren't in real time yet, but in a 3rd gen or later device i imagine they'll be fast enough to be at least as quick as first having to find a piece of paper in a humongous stack (say, 50 printed research papers of 30-40p each).
I find that when I have things I"ve printed off, I often doodle on the pages and mark or highlight things.
Have a look at, say, the DR1000, or the coming PlasticLogic reader. at least the iRex device has a wacom pen that allows you to scribble in pdfs/image files.
I find that like when I was taking notes in school, I can picture in my head the exact page with doodles and all on what I'm trying to look up or remember.
You realise that with very little extra effort you'd be able to attach tags or whatnot to bookmarked passages, or have the reading program spit out all bookmarked/underlined/marked passages into a different file that links back to the main file, etc.?
I can't seem to do the same thing with a computer screen.
Which is why eReaders aren't pc screens without tablet functionality built in (although those touchscreen PCs as displayed by Jeff Han, or in the latest James Bond film or Knight Rider (2008) might allow you to do similar things).
That and for a newspaper, and granted these days I only get the Sunday paper, but, I like it for the coupons I can clip. I like to take out the store ads for BB and other places, take them with me when I go shopping.
So, advertising will change. Shops will have to in order to survive. Just Be Patient.
And frankly, how the hell are you supposed to start the charcoal in the 'chimney' starter without newspaper?
With something else?
You've missed this story then?
Sadly, the blog that was initially involved in this, and where the 'riddle' was solved, seems to have removed the entire blog post + comments (lawyers?), but the posts can still be found here
and what percentage of authors prefers not being read, exactly? Your argument that "there are people that might want their works to go OOP" seems fairly misleading, as the usual case (and the problem is far more often that a publisher will refuse to reprint it, for cost concerns or otherwise.
And it's hardly as though those authors have much choice in the matter.
So no, this is *not* the issue. Yours is just a fringe case.
Google isn't contacting you because you're too small fry.
Anyway, what I don't get is what this summary means. Is it talking about "censorship", about porn, or about digital rights management/copyright issues. The summary seems to vacillate between either of those interpretations, and most people here immediately seem to assume "censorship", but I don't really see how they can conclude that with any degree of certainty.
Reading the article (which is pretty badly written) it seems to be about "porn" mostly, but they fail to explain why we are supposed to care, or why the fact that google has a non-exclusive deal with the AG makes the current situation worse. Apparently they're blaming Google for not having competitors, which seems pretty stupid.
Right now those orphaned (and other) books aren't accessible, nor in the PD, and this won't change if Google partially publishes and partially censors them (as they still won't be PD), but apparently if google censors them there will be no other way for us whatever to access those books, which seems something of a stretch. (but hey, sensationalist journalism is great. It's almost as though they've confused GOOG for MSFT, the twits.)
Secondly, the auction house idea seems even more legally untenable than this deal with the AG is.
Lastly, what is the relevance of P.K. Dick's estate to the discussion, other than as a name?
And what's that exactly? That Vista/Win7 represents "progress"?
That those apps have been badly designed?
That they want to dump legacy support, because it is forcing them to build an insecure OS?
Or rather, as kdawson would want you to believe, that MS is to blame for Global Warming?
Virtualization is so much better as a "compatibility solution" than "compatibility mode" that I'm almost shocked they've thought of it.
I'd already imagined how I could run WinXP in VMWare in the future to play old games on (since my current HW will support that easily, and it seems much better than dual-boot, but this would be even better: A transparant VM.
All Hail MS.
How to make a movie that deals in a pompous manner with inanities like "superheroes aren't necessarily always good" and "if you're really clever, you might become a bit of a sociopath" (or alternatively "the only way to unite human kind is by perpetrating 9/11, I mean, make them hate another guy more")? Because the Romans knew that already, if not the Greeks and Persians.
Anyway, the movie was ok (apart from the moronic sex joke) right up until the end, when all was "revealed". (I haven't read the comics, no, nor will I)
The only guy who was remotely interesting was inkblob, butapart from him? Where is the re-watch value?
Perhaps the most important aspect of Sweden's concessions to Germany during the Second World War was the extensive export of iron ore to be used in the German weapons industry, reaching ten million tons per year. The Swedish neutrality policy meant that the government could not interfere with the trade. As Germany's preparations for war became more apparent and the risk of another war became obvious, international interest in Swedish ore increased. At the time, British intelligence estimated that German industry relied heavily on Swedish iron ore and a decrease or halt in Swedish ore exports could have been disastrous for German military efforts. This is a contentious view that has been debated in the aftermath of the war.
Hardly a run of the mill notion of neutrality, wouldn't you say (although, I seem to recall reading in a source I can't remember that the US also kept up trades with germany until PH)
and knows the prosecutor (**AA lady) personally, and has worked with her quite a bit on that same board?
Considering bad cops, good criminals, and other assorted people that would like to either frame you or draw attention away from them are hardly few and far between (especially in the future, once DNA evidence checking becomes more commonplace through databases such as this one), how long do you think it will be before this is a marvellous way to implicate innocents?