It would be interesting to see some surveys on how much people who buy new books care about the resale value.
I suspect not much. Most people who buy new books don't sell them.
I suspect the same. That being the case, I don't see how sales of used books add up to increased income for the author.
But if a title you want isn't available legally as a DRM free download, does that make it ok to just take an infringing copy? Or would you be obligated to buy it? And if it wasn't in print, to buy it used? I'd argue that if you wanted that title badly enough, you should buy it legally where you can legally get it, or else not have it.
Now we're talking about authors' rights. point #2 in your original post was about the right of used book sellers to make a living. Different issues. I can't say I have a simple answer to the question you're asking now.
#1: It would be interesting to see some surveys on how much people who buy new books care about the resale value.
#2: What? I haven't bought my music as CDs for ages, I buy digital (yea, drm-free) files. Does this make me a bad person for making the brick-and-mortar music store owners starve? Should I be buying something I don't want just because some people depend on those sales for their livelihood? The used book seller makes a living from a service they provide: they make it convenient for a customer to to find the books they want, usually at a low cost. If using that service doesn't make sense for a potential customer, I don't see how they're guilty of anything for choosing a different way of getting what they want.
#3: This is a good point. How does a publisher figure out that a long out-of-print book warrants a new run, though? Digital distribution would help here, since you don't need to manufacture copies and hope you sell enough of them to make a profit. There are also print-on-demand shops, which might be a decent idea, but I suspect the production costs per book are much higher than with mass printing.
One way to look at it is that when you buy a book "new", you're paying for the production costs of the physical medium, the distribution costs etc. as well as reimbursing the author for their work. When you buy a used book, you're arguably just paying someone for the transfer of ownership of a stack of paper, since they went to some trouble to obtain a copy of the book you bought.If you look at it this way, for someone who doesn't want a paper copy of a book, buying a used copy makes no sense at all if an e-book, whether authorized or not, is available.
Of course, the flipside here is that if viewed under this light, the sale of used books is just as "unethical" as distribution of unauthorized digital copies.
Wars tend to push technology forward, as well. Should we be having more of them because there are peripheral economic benefits? I'm not arguing against the importance of space research and exploration, I simply don't think that is going to be where someone looking to create new jobs over the next 4 years or so is likely to be pumping money.
Some day, maybe. Space exploration will be sucking more cash than it produces for a long time to come. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be invested in, but suggesting a space program as a way of creating jobs and financial growth in the short-term because it will lead to new, exploitable resources just doesn't make any sense.
Ah, but the ad in question shows a user blazing through a number of tasks, while the voice-over keeps repeating: "really fast". It's like an auto company coming out with a new model and making a commercial where their car wins an F1 competition while telling the viewers how the new model is "really fast". Except I think most people know it's really quite impossible for some 5-seater to outrun a highly tuned F1 speed rocket, while the idea that the iPhone really is that fast doesn't seem quite as implausible. So yes, I'd say it's pretty misleading.
Having high bodyfat does not necessarily translate to being out of shape. In most cases "fat" people are also in poor physical condition, but not always. I do crossfit-like training, and there's a guy at the training house I go to who has a distinct pot belly and will regularly outperform about 80% of the people who go there at just about any kind of exercise, whether it's heavy lifting or the brutal anaerobic endurance workouts we do. And it's not because the rest of the folks are all in crappy shape, either.
Well, I would expect a neutral news source to not pass on promotional material from anyone as news. If you follow this logic strictly, then a large portion of official portraits is suspect - they are propaganda tools as much as anything else. In my part of the world, I don't recall ever seeing any reputable news source use such portraits to illustrate a news article. Images engineered, whether through digital manipulation or by staging, to portray a person positively (or negatively) do not, ideally, have any place in neutral reporting.
I'm guessing the left picture is not the original, there's severe compression artefacting for one. But the flag is not the only alteration, you'll notice heavy airbrushing over the face as well as general tonal alterations - although done considerably better than the background switch. The shiny highlights from the flash used have been toned down and they've removed a number of lines on her face, especially around the eyes.
What RED says and what it actually is are two different things. I'm told the RED One is supposed to have an 11-stop range, but in reality it seems to be more like 7 or 8.
The thing is, the other "digital film cameras" out there have, so far anyway, tended to cost a whole lot more than what RED offers. RED's equipment isn't necessarely strictly the best out there, nor does it try to be. It's affordable while still providing a very decent quality. A lot of their accessories seem to be aimed at the budget market, too. The thing is, the way RED has priced their offerings, especially with the newest line starting out at 2500 dollars, it's possible for even freelance cinematographers and small production companies to have their own digital 4k camera. Apparently they've been selling quite well.
I think they're just trying to get out of hosting the forums. This sure seems like a less-than-subtle hint to never even make a forum account at EA to me.
I'm pretty sure a large factor in the low discard rates of votes is that not many people are likely to bother to drag themselves over to their voting location in order to just cast a joke ballot. Mandatory voting changes that of course, since you have to go.
Commenter says she is a young female with university degree from Kauniainen who tried electronic voting with poor results. The voting machine had responsiveness issues: first the machine refused to register input of the candidate number, and after numerous presses and waiting the machine responded. The commenter then pressed the "ok" button, nothing happened. She pressed it again, harder, and pressed more times, until after several minutes of trying the buttonpress was registered. Then a screen popped up with the name of the candidate and the user was prompted again to press OK to accept the vote. Same problem with the OK button again, but she managed to get it to register after a long time of trying and waiting for the machine to respond.
If this is accurate, it's not unreasonable to think people may have thought the machine isn't even supposed to show the candidate number chosen on-screen after choosing, or that either of the OK presses aren't actually supposed to result in any response from the machine. 2% failures with these kinds of problems doesn't sound so strange.
Slashdot Mirror
There will come a time when fighting around DRM and finding a decent torrent after becoming frustrated with the purchased copy IS the game.
Ah yes, liquid ice. Why has no-one thought of that before?
What, exactly are the rights you have granted your government and how did you go about doing that?
It would be interesting to see some surveys on how much people who buy new books care about the resale value.
I suspect not much. Most people who buy new books don't sell them.
I suspect the same. That being the case, I don't see how sales of used books add up to increased income for the author.
But if a title you want isn't available legally as a DRM free download, does that make it ok to just take an infringing copy? Or would you be obligated to buy it? And if it wasn't in print, to buy it used? I'd argue that if you wanted that title badly enough, you should buy it legally where you can legally get it, or else not have it.
Now we're talking about authors' rights. point #2 in your original post was about the right of used book sellers to make a living. Different issues. I can't say I have a simple answer to the question you're asking now.
#1: It would be interesting to see some surveys on how much people who buy new books care about the resale value.
#2: What? I haven't bought my music as CDs for ages, I buy digital (yea, drm-free) files. Does this make me a bad person for making the brick-and-mortar music store owners starve? Should I be buying something I don't want just because some people depend on those sales for their livelihood? The used book seller makes a living from a service they provide: they make it convenient for a customer to to find the books they want, usually at a low cost. If using that service doesn't make sense for a potential customer, I don't see how they're guilty of anything for choosing a different way of getting what they want.
#3: This is a good point. How does a publisher figure out that a long out-of-print book warrants a new run, though? Digital distribution would help here, since you don't need to manufacture copies and hope you sell enough of them to make a profit. There are also print-on-demand shops, which might be a decent idea, but I suspect the production costs per book are much higher than with mass printing.
One way to look at it is that when you buy a book "new", you're paying for the production costs of the physical medium, the distribution costs etc. as well as reimbursing the author for their work. When you buy a used book, you're arguably just paying someone for the transfer of ownership of a stack of paper, since they went to some trouble to obtain a copy of the book you bought.If you look at it this way, for someone who doesn't want a paper copy of a book, buying a used copy makes no sense at all if an e-book, whether authorized or not, is available.
Of course, the flipside here is that if viewed under this light, the sale of used books is just as "unethical" as distribution of unauthorized digital copies.
Wars tend to push technology forward, as well. Should we be having more of them because there are peripheral economic benefits? I'm not arguing against the importance of space research and exploration, I simply don't think that is going to be where someone looking to create new jobs over the next 4 years or so is likely to be pumping money.
Some day, maybe. Space exploration will be sucking more cash than it produces for a long time to come. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be invested in, but suggesting a space program as a way of creating jobs and financial growth in the short-term because it will lead to new, exploitable resources just doesn't make any sense.
Then you might want to consider taking a photo of the OTHER end for once.
Obviously you're lying about being an iPhone owner. If you really had one, you'd be looking for ways to pay your porn site bills.
Ah, but the ad in question shows a user blazing through a number of tasks, while the voice-over keeps repeating: "really fast". It's like an auto company coming out with a new model and making a commercial where their car wins an F1 competition while telling the viewers how the new model is "really fast". Except I think most people know it's really quite impossible for some 5-seater to outrun a highly tuned F1 speed rocket, while the idea that the iPhone really is that fast doesn't seem quite as implausible. So yes, I'd say it's pretty misleading.
Or maybe they're simply banking on making such crappy hardware no-one will want another of their laptops three years down the line.
Having high bodyfat does not necessarily translate to being out of shape. In most cases "fat" people are also in poor physical condition, but not always. I do crossfit-like training, and there's a guy at the training house I go to who has a distinct pot belly and will regularly outperform about 80% of the people who go there at just about any kind of exercise, whether it's heavy lifting or the brutal anaerobic endurance workouts we do. And it's not because the rest of the folks are all in crappy shape, either.
Agreed. If you think Mass Effect was well-written, please do NOT try to break into games writing.
And neither, frankly, should be passed on by any reputable news source, as both constitute blatant patriotic propaganda from a state source.
Well, I would expect a neutral news source to not pass on promotional material from anyone as news. If you follow this logic strictly, then a large portion of official portraits is suspect - they are propaganda tools as much as anything else. In my part of the world, I don't recall ever seeing any reputable news source use such portraits to illustrate a news article. Images engineered, whether through digital manipulation or by staging, to portray a person positively (or negatively) do not, ideally, have any place in neutral reporting.
I'm guessing the left picture is not the original, there's severe compression artefacting for one. But the flag is not the only alteration, you'll notice heavy airbrushing over the face as well as general tonal alterations - although done considerably better than the background switch. The shiny highlights from the flash used have been toned down and they've removed a number of lines on her face, especially around the eyes.
I believe it's called "making shit up".
Bonus point for hiring that guy that does voice-overs for action movie and thriller trailers.
So how does one stop believing?
What RED says and what it actually is are two different things. I'm told the RED One is supposed to have an 11-stop range, but in reality it seems to be more like 7 or 8.
The thing is, the other "digital film cameras" out there have, so far anyway, tended to cost a whole lot more than what RED offers. RED's equipment isn't necessarely strictly the best out there, nor does it try to be. It's affordable while still providing a very decent quality. A lot of their accessories seem to be aimed at the budget market, too. The thing is, the way RED has priced their offerings, especially with the newest line starting out at 2500 dollars, it's possible for even freelance cinematographers and small production companies to have their own digital 4k camera. Apparently they've been selling quite well.
I think they're just trying to get out of hosting the forums. This sure seems like a less-than-subtle hint to never even make a forum account at EA to me.
I'm pretty sure a large factor in the low discard rates of votes is that not many people are likely to bother to drag themselves over to their voting location in order to just cast a joke ballot. Mandatory voting changes that of course, since you have to go.
A commenter on an article dealing with the issue at hs.fi says there were problems with the machines that may have caused this issue:
http://www.hs.fi/keskustelu/Brax%3A+Vaalitulosta+ei+voi+perua+hukka%E4%E4nien+takia/thread.jspa?threadID=148607&tstart=0&sourceStart=40&start=60
username Jones is the commenter, it's in Finnish, so here's a summary:
Commenter says she is a young female with university degree from Kauniainen who tried electronic voting with poor results. The voting machine had responsiveness issues: first the machine refused to register input of the candidate number, and after numerous presses and waiting the machine responded. The commenter then pressed the "ok" button, nothing happened. She pressed it again, harder, and pressed more times, until after several minutes of trying the buttonpress was registered. Then a screen popped up with the name of the candidate and the user was prompted again to press OK to accept the vote. Same problem with the OK button again, but she managed to get it to register after a long time of trying and waiting for the machine to respond.
If this is accurate, it's not unreasonable to think people may have thought the machine isn't even supposed to show the candidate number chosen on-screen after choosing, or that either of the OK presses aren't actually supposed to result in any response from the machine. 2% failures with these kinds of problems doesn't sound so strange.