I've got three Lowepro bags, for different situations.
1) An old holster-type bag, with a shoulder strap. Similar to the Toploader Zoom 50, but much older. I use it for day trips to the fair, things like that -- it'll take my SLR (with or without grip) with an 18-125 lens, and I can fit a 50mm in the outside pocket with a few extra memory cards and a spare battery.
2) A slingshot 200. This is my tool for all-day walks. I spent a few weeks walking all over Italy with it, I take it for day hikes, and I carry it pretty much everywhere on a daily basis. It will hold the gripped SLR with any lens I own, up to the 70-300 VC attached, with my other two main lenses (the 50mm and the 18-125OS) and a flash also in the main compartment. The front pocket holds my remote shutter release, a couple of batteries, a notebook and pens. The top pocket holds a Nook perfectly, and still has space for either lunch or a few other travel necessities -- glasses, contact lens stuff, and an address book, for instance.
3) A Fastpack 250, I think. It may be the 350. With all of my lenses, the gripped SLR, a 15.6" laptop, spare batteries, remote trigger, memory cards, tripod, windbreaker, lunch, ebook, notebook, and all the chargers for everything I'm carrying in it it weighs a ton. But it IS a convenient (more or less) way to move everything at once, and make sure it all makes it through airport security. I usually stick one of the other two bags in my checked luggage if I'm going to bring this along, because it's just too big for daily use.
For there server folks, maybe. But a lot of desktop support people are pretty focused on one OS, in my experience. They'll be able to do anything you need with Windows, but not really know anything about Mac or Linux.
And someone who has spent the last 15 years learning to admin Windows servers isn't necessarily going to be able to just step in and make a linux server do what they want; there IS a learning curve, and while it's not all that steep, it means linux servers aren't going to be a "Yeah, I can have that for you tomorrow" kind of deal.
When the economy collapses, the first thing everyone will do is run out to become a computer expert so they can install and run linux. Corporations will replace their entire IT staff with people who know linux, and the average person on the street will suddenly realize that what they really need to do to cope with a failed economy is LEARN A NEW OPERATING SYSTEM!
Or, you know, people might just keep using what they're using while they hope things get better. Because that will leave them time to work enough jobs to buy food.
The odd thing about that is that I know about half a dozen people who are now planning on canceling the streaming part, and JUST getting DVDs.
I'd been thinking about signing up, and a lot of what I want I can get from them on DVD, but not streaming. So for me, if I bother to sign up (which I'm now less inclined to do), I won't sign up for streaming.
"With one project, the foundation supports the construction of pit latrines in rural areas and slums without sanitation facilities."
I'd say that in a rural area it would work at least as well as a pit latrine, and possibly better. You may well be right for a heavily populated area, but that's not the only problem they're working on. And really... if a single composting toilet can handle 3-4 people for daily use, I suspect that a system could be built to handle just about any population density, if someone cared to put the money into design.
And wasn't that what the article was about, really?
This is a solved problem. Composting toilets have been around for decades, and are not uncommon in highway rest areas. They're low/no water use toilets. Liquids are either evaporated with help from a solar-powered exhaust stack or separated and run through underground perf pipe to water flower beds. The solids break down into a sterile compost, and can be used for fertilizing flower beds. They could, in theory, be used safely for fertilizing vegetables, but the yuck factor is more than most people can get past for that.
They're not cheap at the moment, but if you ramped up production and focused more on function than appearance they'd be a lot cheaper to make. They've got very few moving parts (a door to get compost out, an electric fan to encourage evaporation of liquids), so they're easy to maintain.
I appreciate that Bill Gates is trying to solve an important problem -- and it IS an important problem! -- but I find myself wondering why he's not just promoting and improving an existing solution.
Legally speaking, scanning it yourself is probably allowed as long as you don't share it. Downloading a pirate copy is illegal.
Ethically, I personally don't see a difference between the two, since the end result is the same. Neither one costs the author anything, and neither one gains anyone else anything. That said, if there IS a for-purchase ebook version, I'll buy that over scanning my own: I want the authors I like to keep writing, and the only way for that to happen is if they keep making money on it.
quality control from the publishers -- I bought "Glue" by Irvine Welsh, and it's so riddled with scanning errors that I may as well have downloaded a dodgy scan and OCR copy. The amount of times "um" became "urn" was quite surprising. Even worse, one of the characters is called "Gally". That became "Gaily" almost every time he was mentioned. For all I know, he was actually "Gaily" and it became "Gally". "Glue" isn't the only eBook I've bought from a publisher that clearly doesn't give a shit, but it's probably the most absurd. If they're going to charge on the basis of the eBook being edited, they should at least fucking edit it.
This is the one that pisses me off. If I buy a book, I expect to have decent editing. If the book was published in the last 10 years, the publisher OUGHT to have a digital copy anyway. So why are they running them through a scanner?
In several cases, I've found that the illegal copies were better edited and formatted... if some guy working with his scanner can do that, why can't the publisher?
People have realized that you get just as much enjoyment from a DVD as you do from a blu-ray disc, and it's cheaper and easier to get. The fact that all of this happened while the economy was already poor means people had a lot less money to go buy new gadgets, so they had TIME to realize there was no point.
Also, some of us still can't see "blu-ray" without wanting to pronounce it "blurry", and that kind of ruins it for us.
No... there's just a difference between a power user and an expert. I know plenty of people -- and support their computers -- who know a lot about their particular system, and the tools that they need to use daily. They know nothing about any other system, and don't need to.
If the only options you see are "idiot" and "expert", you're missing a lot of ground in the middle...
No, I've described a power user. People who describe themselves as power users mostly haven't used rsync. They mostly use only their own OS, and it's usually Windows. They know how to change basic system settings, set up network file sharing, and keep a backup on an external drive. They understand that they shouldn't run as an admin for daily use, and use a limited account for most things. They more or less understand what a secure password is, and they set up their computer so that it's more secure than it was when it came from the factory. They use encryption and good passwords on their wireless router. They're a power user, but they're not a sysadmin. They're not hackers, they're not IT professionals, and they're not experts. They're users who know a little more than most.
Referring to them as "lusers" just makes them think you're an idiot, and keeps them from respecting your opinions. Treating them respectfully means they'll accept training from you in how to keep their systems more secure. It's not as much fun as mocking them, but it sure cuts down on the number of compromised machines.
Because most users don't have a handy server, or know how to use rsync.
Yeah, yeah, you're a linux user and you don't care. But the average "power user" with a desktop and a laptop doesn't have a spare server in their closet, and isn't running a system that makes rsync easy. They're running Windows, and there isn't an automated system to sync the two computers. They want to just start up whichever computer they're in front of and know their files will be there. That's what Dropbox does.
At least few months ago, that wasn't possible, at least with the Windows client. You had to install the client as an admin, and it was immediately installed for every user, with the same login/password combination. No per-user config at all.
That may very well have changed, but that's how it was when I looked at it.
No... If I had to design something like that, I'd base it on actual road wear-and-tear, with a surcharge for weight above a certain amount. Start with vehicles under 500 pounds (basically motorcycles), and make them free. Then add a set percentage for every 750 pounds above that. If the vehicle is heavy enough that some bridges can't carry it, it gets hit with another small increase.
I'd be tempted to exempt -- or heavily discount -- freight vehicles, or offer incentives to companies that invest heavily in rail transport with only "short distance" truck delivery from central rail delivery points.
On the other hand, if I was making the decision, I'd both drastically reduce the subsidy on gasoline and reduce the tax on gasoline, and let the high price of gas cut down on the number of oversize vehicles on the road. It'd piss a lot of people off, though, which one one reason that will never happen.
While these cars may be better for the environment, the wear they place on the infrastructure is the same as their gasoline-fueled counterparts.
Not entirely false, but also not entirely true. For instance, a Prius weighs about 400 pounds less than a Camry, and 1400 pounds less than a 4runner. Generally more efficient cars weigh a lot less. One of the factors in how much wear they put on infrastructure is weight, so the Prius is actually easier on the roads than the less efficient cars. A Cadillac Escalade (on my mind since I almost got run off the road by one this morning) weighs about 2600 pounds more than a Prius. That's a lot more damage to the road, just from downward force.
So if they were going to do a per-mile tax (which I think is a terrible idea), I'd want to see it done your way: a base cost per mile, with a modifier based on class of vehicle.
I'd expect the cost to be more than $10, but I suspect it will happen. The author in the article has a company that does that for him -- editing, cover art, formatting, conversion to all file types, and submission to the major ebook stores -- and they charge just under $1000.
I suspect that there will be a range of services available, ranging from "We'll put it on all the sites without looking at it" all the way up to "We'll edit it for spelling, grammar, and style, provide you with cover art, get it submitted to all the sites, and provide print-on-demand for anyone who wants to order paper copies." The former will cost very little -- $10-20, probably -- and the latter will be fairly expensive.
Some of them -- and I expect the current big-name publishers to be among them -- will also be fairly choosy about what manuscripts they accept. That way they can advertise that you KNOW you're going to get good editing and well-written books from them, because they won't print just any piece of junk that comes along. Granted, they'll still publish quite a lot that I think is junk, but the percentage will be lower than most vanity-press labels put out.
How is this a valuable service that only a publisher can provide?
It's not. As I said in my first post, the value of a publisher is that they're a single-stop way to get all those things. They're not vital, but they are a convenience.
As I also said in one of my other posts, people DO still buy paper copies. Lots of people, lots of copies. Libraries are, for the most part, ignoring ebooks because the DRM is too restrictive. Lots of people don't have or want ebook readers. Heck, lots of people don't want computers, and don't use them if they don't have to... what makes you think they want an ebook reader?
If was I was in the dead tree publishing business I'd be very nervous and I'd be putting a a lot of work into getting my e-strategy sorted out.
That I absolutely agree with. As much as I like paper books -- and I still buy them and prefer them to ebooks -- they're not going to be the top form of publication for much longer. I doubt they'll disappear completely any time soon, but they're not going to make up the majority of sales for long.
Distribution is still an issue. Yes, you put it on kindle, it's on the kindle store. But it's not at Barnes and Noble, so people with their reader can't get it. It's not on a publisher's web-site so people with non-branded readers can't get it. (Well... not without breaking the DRM, anyway, which is easy for people here, but not as easy for the most people.)
Editing is still an issue. The fact that it's terrible right now doesn't mean it isn't necessary. My personal theory is that the big publishers are doing it to kill ebooks, but that becomes irrelevant once ebooks are the norm.
Brick and mortar stores may be dying, but they're not dead yet, and probably won't be for years. And, as things shift more to ebooks, they'll change. B&N already does a lot of business from the coffee shops in their stores... people come in with a Nook, buy a coffee and a pastry, sit down, test read a few books, and buy something on the way out. And remember... not everyone is as much a technophile as people on slashdot. The fact that the bookstores aren't doing well right now is as much a reflection of the economy as anything else.
True enough that the process is longer than it needs to be, but still... the publishers are providing a service. Perhaps that will be off-loaded to smaller companies that don't keep a physical inventory -- the article talks about Telemachus Press -- but they'll still be a publisher.
I suspect we'll see a move to smaller companies like Telemachus and away from big publishers, but some of the big ones have it right. Baen, for instance, is doing really good things. Their ebooks tend to be well-edited, non-DRM, and priced fairly reasonably. I've bought more books from them than from any other source recently.
Writers are finally waking up to the fact that without the need to actually print books, they have no need of monolithic publishing houses whatsoever.
Not entirely true. The publishing houses don't just provide printing and distribution, they provide editing, publicity, a route into brick-and-mortar retail locations, and often money to live off while an author is writing. Those are all important things.
I'm not saying there's no way around them -- for instance, many authors still work a day job anyway, and there are good free-lance editors available for hire -- but they're a good "one stop" way to get them.
Buy from the vendors that don't include DRM. Buy direct from Baen rather than through Amazon. Buy direct from the publisher in one of the handful of other cases where that's possible.
Also, send the occasional email to places like Amazon that says "Hey... I've spent $500 on books this year, and none of it went to you. It sure would be nice if I could do all my shopping through your store, but I won't while you have DRM on all your files." If enough people do it, they'll start putting pressure on the publishers.
So I'll ask you again. Do you carry a key to your front door, or do you pick the lock?
I'm not the person you originally asked, but I'll bite.
I buy one of the many, many locks on the market that come with keys.
I also buy some of the many, many ebooks on the market that come with DRM.
They're very different questions: in one case, it's trivially easy to buy something that you have full access to. In the other, the legal options are often to get it with DRM or to do without.
For me, it's a practical thing. I want this book, I want the author to receive royalties, it's not available without DRM, I may as well buy it with. When I can, I give my money to companies that don't use it, but there aren't very many of them. My main goal is to make sure the author gets some money when I get the book, since I'd like them to keep producing books for me to read. (As an aside: I have no problem getting books or other media illegally when there's no legal way to get them. If the no one will sell it to me legally under any conditions, and I can download a copy without hurting anyone or depriving anyone else of the possibility of using it, I've got no moral problem with that.)
For you, it's an ideological thing. You want the book, you don't want DRM, and so you download it illegally or do without. Perhaps you occasionally buy from companies that don't use DRM, or perhaps you just don't read electronic books. Your main goal is to get what you want without compromising on your ideals.
You've made your decision, which is fine. Everyone has to make their own decision on this sort of thing, which is why this sort of discussion almost never ends with anyone changing their mind.
Assuming "this" is America, you're wrong. If the majority of people convince their elected officials to vote something into law, then that is the law. But you can't change the law by simply ignoring it: you actually have to have it changed. By all means, if you think a law is unjust, choose not to follow it. But when you get caught, you're not going to get out of the penalties by saying "A majority of Americans think this law is dumb, so it's not actually the law."
This is one place I agree: There are times when they definitively bust a myth. It's true... it IS possible to disprove things, and there are times when they definitively manage it. But most of the time they really ought to display a logo that says "Unlikely, but not yet busted."
Ah... scientific journals... those bastions of impartiality and clear writing.... oh, who am I kidding. Do you ever read those things? I do. My favorite was when the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) hired a stage magician to disprove the work of someone they disagreed with. I agreed that his results were somewhat questionable, but hiring a slight-of-hand artist to disprove them was NOT the right way to go. And that is, or at least was at the time, one of the most respected journals in general medicine! I also enjoy it when their conclusion directly contradicts their data. Fun stuff.
None. And that's the point. Traditional-style warfare doesn't really work anymore, since the majority of conflicts aren't of the "everybody line up and shoot at each other" style these days. Sure, if we ever run into an enemy who sends a traditional army against us we'd probably do fairly well, but that's not what we need.
Slashdot Mirror
I've got three Lowepro bags, for different situations.
1) An old holster-type bag, with a shoulder strap. Similar to the Toploader Zoom 50, but much older. I use it for day trips to the fair, things like that -- it'll take my SLR (with or without grip) with an 18-125 lens, and I can fit a 50mm in the outside pocket with a few extra memory cards and a spare battery.
2) A slingshot 200. This is my tool for all-day walks. I spent a few weeks walking all over Italy with it, I take it for day hikes, and I carry it pretty much everywhere on a daily basis. It will hold the gripped SLR with any lens I own, up to the 70-300 VC attached, with my other two main lenses (the 50mm and the 18-125OS) and a flash also in the main compartment. The front pocket holds my remote shutter release, a couple of batteries, a notebook and pens. The top pocket holds a Nook perfectly, and still has space for either lunch or a few other travel necessities -- glasses, contact lens stuff, and an address book, for instance.
3) A Fastpack 250, I think. It may be the 350. With all of my lenses, the gripped SLR, a 15.6" laptop, spare batteries, remote trigger, memory cards, tripod, windbreaker, lunch, ebook, notebook, and all the chargers for everything I'm carrying in it it weighs a ton. But it IS a convenient (more or less) way to move everything at once, and make sure it all makes it through airport security. I usually stick one of the other two bags in my checked luggage if I'm going to bring this along, because it's just too big for daily use.
For there server folks, maybe. But a lot of desktop support people are pretty focused on one OS, in my experience. They'll be able to do anything you need with Windows, but not really know anything about Mac or Linux.
And someone who has spent the last 15 years learning to admin Windows servers isn't necessarily going to be able to just step in and make a linux server do what they want; there IS a learning curve, and while it's not all that steep, it means linux servers aren't going to be a "Yeah, I can have that for you tomorrow" kind of deal.
Absolutely.
When the economy collapses, the first thing everyone will do is run out to become a computer expert so they can install and run linux. Corporations will replace their entire IT staff with people who know linux, and the average person on the street will suddenly realize that what they really need to do to cope with a failed economy is LEARN A NEW OPERATING SYSTEM!
Or, you know, people might just keep using what they're using while they hope things get better. Because that will leave them time to work enough jobs to buy food.
The odd thing about that is that I know about half a dozen people who are now planning on canceling the streaming part, and JUST getting DVDs.
I'd been thinking about signing up, and a lot of what I want I can get from them on DVD, but not streaming. So for me, if I bother to sign up (which I'm now less inclined to do), I won't sign up for streaming.
"With one project, the foundation supports the construction of pit latrines in rural areas and slums without sanitation facilities."
I'd say that in a rural area it would work at least as well as a pit latrine, and possibly better. You may well be right for a heavily populated area, but that's not the only problem they're working on. And really... if a single composting toilet can handle 3-4 people for daily use, I suspect that a system could be built to handle just about any population density, if someone cared to put the money into design.
And wasn't that what the article was about, really?
This is a solved problem. Composting toilets have been around for decades, and are not uncommon in highway rest areas. They're low/no water use toilets. Liquids are either evaporated with help from a solar-powered exhaust stack or separated and run through underground perf pipe to water flower beds. The solids break down into a sterile compost, and can be used for fertilizing flower beds. They could, in theory, be used safely for fertilizing vegetables, but the yuck factor is more than most people can get past for that.
They're not cheap at the moment, but if you ramped up production and focused more on function than appearance they'd be a lot cheaper to make. They've got very few moving parts (a door to get compost out, an electric fan to encourage evaporation of liquids), so they're easy to maintain.
I appreciate that Bill Gates is trying to solve an important problem -- and it IS an important problem! -- but I find myself wondering why he's not just promoting and improving an existing solution.
Legally speaking, scanning it yourself is probably allowed as long as you don't share it. Downloading a pirate copy is illegal.
Ethically, I personally don't see a difference between the two, since the end result is the same. Neither one costs the author anything, and neither one gains anyone else anything. That said, if there IS a for-purchase ebook version, I'll buy that over scanning my own: I want the authors I like to keep writing, and the only way for that to happen is if they keep making money on it.
quality control from the publishers -- I bought "Glue" by Irvine Welsh, and it's so riddled with scanning errors that I may as well have downloaded a dodgy scan and OCR copy. The amount of times "um" became "urn" was quite surprising. Even worse, one of the characters is called "Gally". That became "Gaily" almost every time he was mentioned. For all I know, he was actually "Gaily" and it became "Gally". "Glue" isn't the only eBook I've bought from a publisher that clearly doesn't give a shit, but it's probably the most absurd. If they're going to charge on the basis of the eBook being edited, they should at least fucking edit it.
This is the one that pisses me off. If I buy a book, I expect to have decent editing. If the book was published in the last 10 years, the publisher OUGHT to have a digital copy anyway. So why are they running them through a scanner?
In several cases, I've found that the illegal copies were better edited and formatted... if some guy working with his scanner can do that, why can't the publisher?
People have realized that you get just as much enjoyment from a DVD as you do from a blu-ray disc, and it's cheaper and easier to get. The fact that all of this happened while the economy was already poor means people had a lot less money to go buy new gadgets, so they had TIME to realize there was no point.
Also, some of us still can't see "blu-ray" without wanting to pronounce it "blurry", and that kind of ruins it for us.
No... there's just a difference between a power user and an expert. I know plenty of people -- and support their computers -- who know a lot about their particular system, and the tools that they need to use daily. They know nothing about any other system, and don't need to.
If the only options you see are "idiot" and "expert", you're missing a lot of ground in the middle...
No, I've described a power user. People who describe themselves as power users mostly haven't used rsync. They mostly use only their own OS, and it's usually Windows. They know how to change basic system settings, set up network file sharing, and keep a backup on an external drive. They understand that they shouldn't run as an admin for daily use, and use a limited account for most things. They more or less understand what a secure password is, and they set up their computer so that it's more secure than it was when it came from the factory. They use encryption and good passwords on their wireless router. They're a power user, but they're not a sysadmin. They're not hackers, they're not IT professionals, and they're not experts. They're users who know a little more than most.
Referring to them as "lusers" just makes them think you're an idiot, and keeps them from respecting your opinions. Treating them respectfully means they'll accept training from you in how to keep their systems more secure. It's not as much fun as mocking them, but it sure cuts down on the number of compromised machines.
Because most users don't have a handy server, or know how to use rsync.
Yeah, yeah, you're a linux user and you don't care. But the average "power user" with a desktop and a laptop doesn't have a spare server in their closet, and isn't running a system that makes rsync easy. They're running Windows, and there isn't an automated system to sync the two computers. They want to just start up whichever computer they're in front of and know their files will be there. That's what Dropbox does.
At least few months ago, that wasn't possible, at least with the Windows client. You had to install the client as an admin, and it was immediately installed for every user, with the same login/password combination. No per-user config at all.
That may very well have changed, but that's how it was when I looked at it.
No... If I had to design something like that, I'd base it on actual road wear-and-tear, with a surcharge for weight above a certain amount. Start with vehicles under 500 pounds (basically motorcycles), and make them free. Then add a set percentage for every 750 pounds above that. If the vehicle is heavy enough that some bridges can't carry it, it gets hit with another small increase.
I'd be tempted to exempt -- or heavily discount -- freight vehicles, or offer incentives to companies that invest heavily in rail transport with only "short distance" truck delivery from central rail delivery points.
On the other hand, if I was making the decision, I'd both drastically reduce the subsidy on gasoline and reduce the tax on gasoline, and let the high price of gas cut down on the number of oversize vehicles on the road. It'd piss a lot of people off, though, which one one reason that will never happen.
While these cars may be better for the environment, the wear they place on the infrastructure is the same as their gasoline-fueled counterparts.
Not entirely false, but also not entirely true. For instance, a Prius weighs about 400 pounds less than a Camry, and 1400 pounds less than a 4runner. Generally more efficient cars weigh a lot less. One of the factors in how much wear they put on infrastructure is weight, so the Prius is actually easier on the roads than the less efficient cars. A Cadillac Escalade (on my mind since I almost got run off the road by one this morning) weighs about 2600 pounds more than a Prius. That's a lot more damage to the road, just from downward force.
So if they were going to do a per-mile tax (which I think is a terrible idea), I'd want to see it done your way: a base cost per mile, with a modifier based on class of vehicle.
I'd expect the cost to be more than $10, but I suspect it will happen. The author in the article has a company that does that for him -- editing, cover art, formatting, conversion to all file types, and submission to the major ebook stores -- and they charge just under $1000.
I suspect that there will be a range of services available, ranging from "We'll put it on all the sites without looking at it" all the way up to "We'll edit it for spelling, grammar, and style, provide you with cover art, get it submitted to all the sites, and provide print-on-demand for anyone who wants to order paper copies." The former will cost very little -- $10-20, probably -- and the latter will be fairly expensive.
Some of them -- and I expect the current big-name publishers to be among them -- will also be fairly choosy about what manuscripts they accept. That way they can advertise that you KNOW you're going to get good editing and well-written books from them, because they won't print just any piece of junk that comes along. Granted, they'll still publish quite a lot that I think is junk, but the percentage will be lower than most vanity-press labels put out.
How is this a valuable service that only a publisher can provide?
It's not. As I said in my first post, the value of a publisher is that they're a single-stop way to get all those things. They're not vital, but they are a convenience.
As I also said in one of my other posts, people DO still buy paper copies. Lots of people, lots of copies. Libraries are, for the most part, ignoring ebooks because the DRM is too restrictive. Lots of people don't have or want ebook readers. Heck, lots of people don't want computers, and don't use them if they don't have to... what makes you think they want an ebook reader?
If was I was in the dead tree publishing business I'd be very nervous and I'd be putting a a lot of work into getting my e-strategy sorted out.
That I absolutely agree with. As much as I like paper books -- and I still buy them and prefer them to ebooks -- they're not going to be the top form of publication for much longer. I doubt they'll disappear completely any time soon, but they're not going to make up the majority of sales for long.
Distribution is still an issue. Yes, you put it on kindle, it's on the kindle store. But it's not at Barnes and Noble, so people with their reader can't get it. It's not on a publisher's web-site so people with non-branded readers can't get it. (Well... not without breaking the DRM, anyway, which is easy for people here, but not as easy for the most people.)
Editing is still an issue. The fact that it's terrible right now doesn't mean it isn't necessary. My personal theory is that the big publishers are doing it to kill ebooks, but that becomes irrelevant once ebooks are the norm.
Brick and mortar stores may be dying, but they're not dead yet, and probably won't be for years. And, as things shift more to ebooks, they'll change. B&N already does a lot of business from the coffee shops in their stores... people come in with a Nook, buy a coffee and a pastry, sit down, test read a few books, and buy something on the way out. And remember... not everyone is as much a technophile as people on slashdot. The fact that the bookstores aren't doing well right now is as much a reflection of the economy as anything else.
True enough that the process is longer than it needs to be, but still... the publishers are providing a service. Perhaps that will be off-loaded to smaller companies that don't keep a physical inventory -- the article talks about Telemachus Press -- but they'll still be a publisher.
I suspect we'll see a move to smaller companies like Telemachus and away from big publishers, but some of the big ones have it right. Baen, for instance, is doing really good things. Their ebooks tend to be well-edited, non-DRM, and priced fairly reasonably. I've bought more books from them than from any other source recently.
Writers are finally waking up to the fact that without the need to actually print books, they have no need of monolithic publishing houses whatsoever.
Not entirely true. The publishing houses don't just provide printing and distribution, they provide editing, publicity, a route into brick-and-mortar retail locations, and often money to live off while an author is writing. Those are all important things.
I'm not saying there's no way around them -- for instance, many authors still work a day job anyway, and there are good free-lance editors available for hire -- but they're a good "one stop" way to get them.
Buy from the vendors that don't include DRM. Buy direct from Baen rather than through Amazon. Buy direct from the publisher in one of the handful of other cases where that's possible.
Also, send the occasional email to places like Amazon that says "Hey... I've spent $500 on books this year, and none of it went to you. It sure would be nice if I could do all my shopping through your store, but I won't while you have DRM on all your files." If enough people do it, they'll start putting pressure on the publishers.
So I'll ask you again. Do you carry a key to your front door, or do you pick the lock?
I'm not the person you originally asked, but I'll bite.
I buy one of the many, many locks on the market that come with keys.
I also buy some of the many, many ebooks on the market that come with DRM.
They're very different questions: in one case, it's trivially easy to buy something that you have full access to. In the other, the legal options are often to get it with DRM or to do without.
For me, it's a practical thing. I want this book, I want the author to receive royalties, it's not available without DRM, I may as well buy it with. When I can, I give my money to companies that don't use it, but there aren't very many of them. My main goal is to make sure the author gets some money when I get the book, since I'd like them to keep producing books for me to read. (As an aside: I have no problem getting books or other media illegally when there's no legal way to get them. If the no one will sell it to me legally under any conditions, and I can download a copy without hurting anyone or depriving anyone else of the possibility of using it, I've got no moral problem with that.)
For you, it's an ideological thing. You want the book, you don't want DRM, and so you download it illegally or do without. Perhaps you occasionally buy from companies that don't use DRM, or perhaps you just don't read electronic books. Your main goal is to get what you want without compromising on your ideals.
You've made your decision, which is fine. Everyone has to make their own decision on this sort of thing, which is why this sort of discussion almost never ends with anyone changing their mind.
Assuming "this" is America, you're wrong. If the majority of people convince their elected officials to vote something into law, then that is the law. But you can't change the law by simply ignoring it: you actually have to have it changed. By all means, if you think a law is unjust, choose not to follow it. But when you get caught, you're not going to get out of the penalties by saying "A majority of Americans think this law is dumb, so it's not actually the law."
This is one place I agree: There are times when they definitively bust a myth. It's true... it IS possible to disprove things, and there are times when they definitively manage it. But most of the time they really ought to display a logo that says "Unlikely, but not yet busted."
Ah... scientific journals... those bastions of impartiality and clear writing.... oh, who am I kidding. Do you ever read those things? I do. My favorite was when the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) hired a stage magician to disprove the work of someone they disagreed with. I agreed that his results were somewhat questionable, but hiring a slight-of-hand artist to disprove them was NOT the right way to go. And that is, or at least was at the time, one of the most respected journals in general medicine! I also enjoy it when their conclusion directly contradicts their data. Fun stuff.
None. And that's the point. Traditional-style warfare doesn't really work anymore, since the majority of conflicts aren't of the "everybody line up and shoot at each other" style these days. Sure, if we ever run into an enemy who sends a traditional army against us we'd probably do fairly well, but that's not what we need.