Except that this isn't. It's a 2.5" laptop hard drive that's 5mm thick.
Which at 0.32 cubits length gives a volume of a 70 millionth of an Olympic swimming pool (Sorry, just amused by the mix of measurements in response to a comment about silly measurements)
Size doesn't matter so much here. Tablets are pretty big. The one sitting on my desk looks like it's about a cm thick, so I'd say you could fit one of these in without changing the size too much. Power would be an issue though, and you didn't mention reliability.
Authors get rather little relative to what the publisher gets.
This applies to paper books as well.
And your first question is invalid. Ebooks have no marginal cost and microscopically small cost of delivery, and AFAIK no inventory value
Why does this make my question invalid? If eBooks did have a marginal cost, would they be worth more to you? Is an item that costs $10 to produce worth more to you than an idenical item that is free to produce? I'm questioning why the cost to produce something should affect the price you're willing to pay.
I view the prices of e-books as drastically out of line with cost.
Does this mean that if eBooks cost more to produce, you'd pay more for exactly the same thing? Why? The product would be exactly the same and have exactly the same value to you.
Unit manufacturing cost for media has been pretty small for a century or two. The cost has always been about dividing the cost of creating the original source between all potential buyers. Given how poorly most authors are paid, I don't really feel in being gouged here.
And their customers have stated that an eBook, without a dead tree version, should sell for whatever they're willing to pay. Who are Amazon to argue with their customers over this matter?
I never said trade embargoes were the way to deal with things. Moral authority seems to help with this sort of thing. If a country is powerful and friendly, people aspire to be like that country. If part of that country's policy is a strong respect for human rights, then people will aspire to have those values.
Surely this is a good thing.
Frankly, all I care about is that he stop bombing other countries because it's not good for the US when he does.
Well, I agree that this is not good for the US but the main issue I see is with the nation's global reputation. This doesn't seem important to you, so why do you think it's bad?
It's not America's job (nor within America's abilities) to fix Russia or China by exerting pressure.
In that case US officials should shut up about human rights abuses in these countries.
Here, too, you overestimate the abilities of the US.
Not really. $48 billion in trade is no trivial amount even if trade with Europe is larger.
You're right there: instead of standing by its actions, Europe just quietly deals with all these totalitarian regimes with few restrictions and then blames the US
Sure. And they're guilty of the same thing, and lose moral authority in the same way. The same areguments apply to these as to the US.
I'm not talking about Europe. They're enlightened enough not to use the US as a model. And I'm not talking about the countries that the US is actively supporting or hostile towards.
Its countries like Russia and China. Places where we'd like to see better due process and better human rights because this is beneficial to everyone.
If Saudi Arabia delivers Al Quaeda terrorists into the hands of US authorities without due process, it is being treated more nicely than when the Taliban doesn't. Your problem with that is... what?
The fact that the "being treated more nicely" invloves the US turning a blind eye to considerably worse harm being done to the majority of the citizens of Saudi Arabia than those allged terorists are ever likely to do.
America still is an exceptionally free country. Being an exceptionally free country doesn't mean that non-citizens can come and go as they please.
No, but it does mean that one expects some basic freedoms to be protected.
Quite the opposite: people like Obama use other countries' repressive policies to introduce similar policies in the US. Whether it's domestic surveillance, public transit subsidies, or health care reform, US progressives keep saying "people in Europe do it that way, we need to do it too", and Europeans cheer them on.
Is this just a rant about how evil free health care is, or does it have some relevance to what I said? The fact that Obama does this doesn't mean other countries don't use rights abuses by the US to justify their own. American pressure to reduce human rights abuses in other countries tends to be weakened if a country reserves the right to hold, interrogate and search people, and sieze their property, without allowing them any legal representation.
If you like Scalzi, you'll probably enjoy it. But I agree with the consensus on Amazon. The codas at the end are an interesting idea and work quite well, but there's not really enough mileage in the basic concept.
Building a nuclear power plant is expensive. It takes several days to go from zero power to full power, and to shut down. Electricity can't exactly be put in a warehouse. And even at reduced power the staffinf costs are the same
Nuclear plants provide base load. They keep running and sell electricity at whatever the going rate is.
Right. Most of Europe is effectively borderless. The Schengen agreement essentially means that meber state borders have similar restrictions to between US states, apart from a few exceptions that can only be applied in special cases for limited times. Going from the Schengen area to the UK causes similar issues to Canada to the US.
Yes. There's a heirarchy. Family, local community, country, world. People are not going to sacrifice the benefit of one of the earlier ones for one fo the later. We've evolved to make that unthinkable.
We all want good schools for other people's children. But we also wuld prefer god schools in Liberia. I think an argument applies to working to improve schools there but nobody will sacrifice their own country's kids' futures for it.
A polygraph is not complete pseudoscience. There's a definite correlation between the various factors measured and lying.
The problem is, there are dozens of other factors that can cause the same responses, and a relaxed person who's a good liar (i.e. the sort of person who would be a good spy) will usually be able to control these.
It's not an assertion. It's an explanation that fits the data based on reasonable assumptions.
It is a fact that several Mac models come with displays higher than 1080p as standard. It's also conceivable that, since they share most of the same codebase, the issues affecting the Mac also affected the PC. It is at least possible that nobody has tried running it at this resolution, and felt the need to complain about the failure.
It's also possible that this does actually work fine on high resolution PC displays, in which case my explanation is incorrect. It's also possible that there is another more likely explanation. This is just an application of Occam's razor. It's what seems the most likely explanation to me. Have a better explanation, or evidence that my explanation is wrong? Great! Let's have it.
An error that can be fixed by changing the OS language could conceivably be a DRM issue. the others are less likely.
Not working at a high resultion is extremely unlikely to be DRM related. This may be an issue that affects the PC version as well, though; Just that such high resolution displays are rare on the PC.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, it's not like being expensive is going to stop the a government from oppressing its citizens.Usually thry can get hold of money pretty easily.
By default, yes.
I believe so. Your kids might contest it. I dare say you could donate it to the public domain in your will, but really you need legal advise here.
This applies to paper books as well.
Why does this make my question invalid? If eBooks did have a marginal cost, would they be worth more to you? Is an item that costs $10 to produce worth more to you than an idenical item that is free to produce? I'm questioning why the cost to produce something should affect the price you're willing to pay.
The only reason I've even heard of it is because it was mentioned in an episode of Dexter.
Some of us live outside the US.
Does this mean that if eBooks cost more to produce, you'd pay more for exactly the same thing? Why? The product would be exactly the same and have exactly the same value to you.
Unit manufacturing cost for media has been pretty small for a century or two. The cost has always been about dividing the cost of creating the original source between all potential buyers. Given how poorly most authors are paid, I don't really feel in being gouged here.
It was an offhand comment about in internal codename. It's not their fault Sagan thought this was an actual product name.
And their customers have stated that an eBook, without a dead tree version, should sell for whatever they're willing to pay. Who are Amazon to argue with their customers over this matter?
I have several series in hardback that I'd like to continue with. But since I travel a lot, kindle is more convenient.
I would say I couldn't be happier about this, but I want this extended to audiobooks.
Surely this is a good thing.
Well, I agree that this is not good for the US but the main issue I see is with the nation's global reputation. This doesn't seem important to you, so why do you think it's bad?
In that case US officials should shut up about human rights abuses in these countries.
Not really. $48 billion in trade is no trivial amount even if trade with Europe is larger.
Sure. And they're guilty of the same thing, and lose moral authority in the same way. The same areguments apply to these as to the US.
Its countries like Russia and China. Places where we'd like to see better due process and better human rights because this is beneficial to everyone.
The fact that the "being treated more nicely" invloves the US turning a blind eye to considerably worse harm being done to the majority of the citizens of Saudi Arabia than those allged terorists are ever likely to do.
No, but it does mean that one expects some basic freedoms to be protected.
Is this just a rant about how evil free health care is, or does it have some relevance to what I said? The fact that Obama does this doesn't mean other countries don't use rights abuses by the US to justify their own. American pressure to reduce human rights abuses in other countries tends to be weakened if a country reserves the right to hold, interrogate and search people, and sieze their property, without allowing them any legal representation.
If you like Scalzi, you'll probably enjoy it. But I agree with the consensus on Amazon. The codas at the end are an interesting idea and work quite well, but there's not really enough mileage in the basic concept.
The Hugos use preference voting so this sort of split doesn't happen.
I think the really remarkable fact here is that the Dramatic Presentation award (Short Form) went to something other than Doctor Who.
Building a nuclear power plant is expensive. It takes several days to go from zero power to full power, and to shut down. Electricity can't exactly be put in a warehouse. And even at reduced power the staffinf costs are the same
Nuclear plants provide base load. They keep running and sell electricity at whatever the going rate is.
If this is an area for study, could this treatment be part of a study and funded by a university or whoever funds studies into mental disorders?
Right. Most of Europe is effectively borderless. The Schengen agreement essentially means that meber state borders have similar restrictions to between US states, apart from a few exceptions that can only be applied in special cases for limited times. Going from the Schengen area to the UK causes similar issues to Canada to the US.
Yes. There's a heirarchy. Family, local community, country, world. People are not going to sacrifice the benefit of one of the earlier ones for one fo the later. We've evolved to make that unthinkable.
We all want good schools for other people's children. But we also wuld prefer god schools in Liberia. I think an argument applies to working to improve schools there but nobody will sacrifice their own country's kids' futures for it.
Shame the founding fathers didn't think like that.
"Gee. I really don't like this whole taxation by a foreign government thing. Let's just move back to England".
A polygraph is not complete pseudoscience. There's a definite correlation between the various factors measured and lying.
The problem is, there are dozens of other factors that can cause the same responses, and a relaxed person who's a good liar (i.e. the sort of person who would be a good spy) will usually be able to control these.
Proof?
It's not an assertion. It's an explanation that fits the data based on reasonable assumptions.
It is a fact that several Mac models come with displays higher than 1080p as standard. It's also conceivable that, since they share most of the same codebase, the issues affecting the Mac also affected the PC. It is at least possible that nobody has tried running it at this resolution, and felt the need to complain about the failure.
It's also possible that this does actually work fine on high resolution PC displays, in which case my explanation is incorrect. It's also possible that there is another more likely explanation. This is just an application of Occam's razor. It's what seems the most likely explanation to me. Have a better explanation, or evidence that my explanation is wrong? Great! Let's have it.
An error that can be fixed by changing the OS language could conceivably be a DRM issue. the others are less likely.
Not working at a high resultion is extremely unlikely to be DRM related. This may be an issue that affects the PC version as well, though; Just that such high resolution displays are rare on the PC.