More often, people will bring it back to the point of sale, and harangue the personnel there. This is because it is easier to intimidate the person at the service counter than it is a voice over the phone.
If the stock is spoiled on the shelves, then the retailer will pull it and go after the manufacturer for delivering shoddy goods and ruining the retailer's rep. Retailers like to be proactive, as visibly taking corrective measures like this actually boost the reputation, and encourage customers to buy more.
Hmmm...
Maybe Staples is doing this on purpose, looking to kneecap the manufacturer as a way of earning brownie points? In this scenario, it's a net win as they come out looking flexible enough to try it, and then like a champion of their customers...
Actually, I can see another hack harming the company even more: the adhesive being prematurely triggered, rendering the disk unusable before the packaging is even opened. Hordes of irate customers will make it a nightmare.
Liberal means respect for individual freedoms and rights; most Americans confuse this with "libertarian". It has nothing to do with the size of government, but the role as referee. What you call liberal is more like social democracy, which sees government as a tool to promote fairness through supporting programmes. And further along the scale, there's the socialist philosophy that sees government as a force that should intervene in commerce, not merely referee.
So to use another metaphor, their scale didn't go to 11.
The ending of A Scanner Darkly was really close to the original story, and I wouldn't call it a happy ending. And yes, there was a studio behind that movie.
Then again, A Scanner Darkly wasn't a typical movie, and not intended to be a blockbuster.
Actually, there have been problems due to all liquids being poured into the same container. Some reacted to each other, and the fumes made people nauseous...
In another sense of the word, it is security theatre in that gun sellers use it as an argument to convince people to buy one. As far as security measures go, though, it has a low cost effectiveness.
But there is a different form of security theatre, true. Some people put signs up advertising the possession of a firearm, but not all of them actually own one...
I think you miss the point of "security theatre". As I replied to another poster, the increase in one area is offset by the increased risk in others. This makes firearms less cost-effective as a security measure.
Better investments would be in alarm systems, or simply in installing better windows and doors. The problem with a firearm as a theft deterrent is that the intruder doesn't know you have one, unless you advertise the fact. Even then, it is cheaper to advertise owning a gun without actually owning one...
The point is that having a firearm is security theatre in that it (theoretically) lowers the risk in one case (as a deterrent/self defence), but increases the overall risk due to accidents, usage in a quarrel, and so on.
Instead, the money invested in owning and maintaining a firearm is better invested in more secure windows and doors. That is why owning a handgun merely for protection is considered security theatre.
As I am sure you have been lectured a bit, here's a summary of your logical errors:
Hitler never came and bombed us directly like Hussein You have admitted your error later on, in recognising that Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein were not allied. Still the error goes deeper in that from 1939 to 1941, Germans deliberately targeted and sank US commercial shipping to Europe. Also, just after the US declaration of war against Japan, Germany declared war against the USA and began attacking any US resources they could.
Iraq, on the other hand, did not declare war. In fact, both Iraq and Iran issued statements of condemnation. Where Hitler celebrated the attack against the USA, Saddam tried to mollify.
Cuba never attacked us directly, yet surely you don't think that them having missiles aimed at the US is any reason to have missiles aimed back at Cuba. Cuba never got to that point, since Kennedy was able to handle that incident without firing a shot. Whether US missiles were programmed to hit Cuba after that is classified, but it is a safe bet that they were instead aimed at more strategic targets.
In fact, your comparing a deterrent posture to a pre-emptive invasion is simply wrong. Striking a defensive posture is not equal to taking offensive action.
You seem to meander, as your argument suggests that "insurgents" refers to a singular group working to one goal. In Iraq, that is demonstrably not the case.
There are several armed groups in Iraq using covert methods, and the jihadists were never a large factor. Instead, the main forces were the Ba'ath Party and former Iraqi army members, who stood down when the US-led invasion began. Many did this due to secret deals with the US, and thought they could return to normal once Saddam was deposed. When the USA disbanded the Army and kicked all Ba'ath members out of the government, all of a sudden a bunch of well-armed men were out of work and pissed at broken promises.
Later on, Arab nationalists came in force, to help "liberate" Iraq. The motives were not all religious, but many were inspired by regional patriotism. They were not invited, though; many faced open antipathy from the locals, and their numbers soon dropped.
And all this time, the simmering three-way feud between Sunni, Shi'a and Kurds keeps bubbling away, and centuries-old vendettas are hot again as there is no authority to suppress them any more.
So what was missing from this mix? A desire to destroy the USA, really. They just wanted the Americans to get out, as the occupation has made their lives worse. But the longer foreign troops stay there, resentment grows to the point of desiring "to give them a taste of their own medicine", to make Americans suffer like they suffer, to "see how they like it when they lose loved ones like we do".
Oh, and you do know that Al Qaeda had no presence in Iraq before the US-led invasion and occupation, and even now is only a bit player? Or have you forgotten that it was Saudi wackos that hijacked the planes?
But you aren't. You're creating insurgents out of formerly disinterested parties that in the past were even sympathetic. You are diverting resources and manpower away from defence of your own interests and assets, and weakening the overall defensive posture.
That is, if you are doing anything at all besides armchair cheerleading.
So while the US armed forces are busy overseas, expending their resources faster than they can be replenished, homegrown radical militias like the one that spawned Tim McVieh go unchecked, harbours go unmonitored and many other radical groups feel empowered by the fact that the USA cannot engage them.
The most recent example of this was when the German Chaos Computer Club published the fingerprints of Wolfgang Schäuble, Germany's Innenminister (sort of like the UK home secretary or the USA's DHS head). They even distributed it as a film with their magazine, since there is no law against publishing fingerprints.
I admit, I was a little simplistic but I stand by my two points. The first is that enforcement is not merely forensic, but also a deterrent. Granted, there are people who understand societal needs balancing personal needs, so deterrent is only a factor. But it is a huge factor in preventing crimes of opportunity.
My other point is that government enforcement also goes toward enforcing disputed claims of ownership. This does not always mean that the parties feel their property rights were violated, but that ownership is in question, but that both sides rely upon the government to judge in the dispute. Enforcement can go so far as impounding and seizing the property, or protecting the awarded owner as he claims the property. Again, this is also not a forensic but a corrective measure.
I recommend you consider the following: the government as enforcer is much like a referee. Just like a referee, the government does not interfere unless the rules are broken or if both sides request judgement over a rule. The referee must give players the benefit of the doubt about potentially committing a foul, and withhold their call until the foul is actually committed. If, say, a players stumbles towards the boundary, the referee will not call him out of bounds until he actually steps out of bounds. After all, he might regain his footing at the last second...
You ignore the far more common form of government enforcement, that of deterrent force. Most people never even attempt a burglary simply because of the threat of punishment.
Also, consider the other form of enforcement that a government holds: judicial arbitration. In cases of conflicting claims of property, the government holds the authority to decide and can enforce, up to and including seizure.
But, there is a difference. I didn't kill anyone, and Shew0lf is trying to kill my entire family. See, Shew0lf is committing a crime, murder, an invasion, of sorts. That's today, and you see, the only way he can rationalize it, is by inventing some past ancestor to "even the score". Ah, but Shew0lf is merely enforcing her own claim to the disputed property. Without any authorities, where is the law that says you are right and she is wrong? Does the law then belong to the one with the biggest guns? If so, is she then right if she succeeds?
(By the way, you keep calling her a communist, which is silly. The hypothetical situation proposed is anarchy, a totally different form of government.)
First off, what does the past have to do with anything? The people, their cultural framework, everything about them, are dead. We can have a few historians tell a few stories about them that entertains us, but such histories will always be through the viewpoint of our culture. The only way you can deal with property rights with any sort of intelligence or consistency is to look at what property is today. The past is what gives your claim legitimacy. Or is your title of ownership based solely on the force with which you hold it? If someone were to kill you and only your son would escape, would he have lost all rights to your property? After all, it is in the past.
You refer to culture, yet argue from a very selfish, almost solipsist standpoint. Remember that your arguments involve no help from the community.
Well, again, you are confused. Property rights exist today. You are either killing someone to take their land, or you are not. The past is entirely irrelevant. Honestly, if you wanted to take this silly "past" approach back, I can always go further back in time. You see, if I have the first oxygen atom in me, that was ever made, and, so, everyone has stolen everything from me. Therefor, I should be Emperor of the Universe. I think you are the one confused, in trying to claim rights without recognising that those rights involve the community. If no one else recognises your right, then it is non-existent. The "king" enforces the will of the community, and that includes property ownership.
In this thread, you keep referring to your property rights as something you personally defend, yet you keep relying upon the mores of the community, the laws of the "king", to justify why you should be able to use force to defend your claim against other claimants. You can't have it both ways.
No, I'm on my land. I'm making something of it. I'm there. ShieldW0lf argues that he has the right to go break into someone's house, murder a man, his wife, and his children in their sleep, take his food, and house, as his, for some against him that the man arguably had little to do with. I'm a property owner, ShieldW0lf is a murderer, like most communists are. Now you are slipping into self-parody. The point that was being made was that a governing body is a far greater guarantee of your property than your own powers of enforcement. If another person were to show that he had a more valid claim to owning your property, then the government would enforce his claim over yours. You would be a squatter, a criminal should you try to enforce your claim.
Without the power of the "king" backing your claim, your statement of ownership would only last until someone could overpower you, most likely in a gang. Do you really want that sort of brutal, paranoid life? What if your neighbour extends his garden, claiming your yard as his with a fence and his own guns? Can you even trust your wife not to kill you and thus claim title on your property? What about your kids? Without a "king" and his enforcement, who can keep this from happening?
I think you misunderstand, in that "king" is best seen as a shorthand for any government or ruler.
In the USA, your property rights are granted to you by the government, which also reserves the right to take property from you should it serve their purposes. Forcing you to sell your fields for a new highway, for example, or seizure by debtors.
Even your right to defend your property with arms is limited, really; you may not wantonly use it, and are expected to submit to legal authorities. You make it sound as if you forcibly hold your property through the threat of violence, when the reality is that the government's legal recognition of your title is a far greater reason. Nobody dares claim your property because the government at all levels recognises your title. Your guns would be of little use should someone else prove title to 'your' property, as then the government would enforce that claim, with overwhelming force.
Germany does not forbid Scientology per se, but it does deny the Church of Scientology church status. It isn't even considered a non-profit organisation, but a for-profit corporation. It also considers the CoS a potential threat to the constitution, and has it under observation to detect subversive and/or criminal activities.
Otherwise, most here in Germany consider it a for-profit scam.
Germany does not consider the Church of Scientology a church, but a for-profit organisation and thus denies them the tax status of churches.
Instead, they are considered a scam operation out to fleece clients using faith as a cover. Also they are under observation as a constitutional threat, since one of the church's stated beliefs is to subvert/overthrow the government.
You can believe in Scientology all you want, but to Germany the Church of Scientology just a corporation. It's the organisation that is restricted, not the religion.
Well, considering the number of fringe cults within Christianity, I would note that your statement almost commits a No True Scotsman* fallacy.
Instead, I would state that Christianity is a supergroup of religions, with many subgroups within it. For example. Jehova's Witnesses are Christian, and they really do believe that.
*("No Scotsman would buy that." "But MacDirmid bought one last week." "Well, MacDirmid's not a true Scotsman!")
Off the top of me head, I think one of the other mystic movements of the time would have won out in the end. My money would have been on the Orphic cults, though the Isis fans were also pretty popular. They were superficially similar to early Christianity, and cross-pollination between them and Christianity occurred up to and through Constantine's elevating Christianity to the winner's slot.
Of course, it would have been more interesting if Buddhism had been brought back from India by Alexander...
I think you've hit upon a trade-off in design: the haptics of a well-designed remote mean that you can find the button without looking, since the main buttons have a known place and a recognisable shape. But as functions crowd each other and more buttons appear, the ability to trust only touch drops. Touchscreen remotes can be designed to offer larger sweet spots, eliminating the need for haptic confirmation as they can hide and show buttons according to context. But this in return demands a clean and consistent interface design.
I think you missed his point: in previous iterations, fingers were too inexact on the existing hardware. Also, they couldn't distinguish all that well if two fingers hit the screen, and the originals did seem to have a lot of "aaargh, I didn't mean to do that!" in them. They were also much more expensive to make in the past, and more prone to wear out. So since mice were cheaper to make and easier to pinpoint, they won for the first decades.
Or are you suggesting that Picasso should have finger-painted and not used brushes? I mean, most digital artists use tablet interfaces... I myself am using a Wacom Intuos tablet at this very moment, so it's not as if every brush is shaped like a bar of soap. I suggest you consider in your metaphor that the mouse is the handle of the brush, but not the head. It may look clumsier than only using fingers, but the variety of tips offers better control in applying paint than fingertips do...
I actually want both: a book I can read and leave open on the desk, and thus not robbing screen space, and also a reference much like the PHP online handbook that I can search and be assured that the information is current.
I think the advantage of the electronic media isn't in the search, though it can be faster than the index. No, I see the real advantage in displaying information that has a short lifespan or may be in flux, like news or semi-animated text. E-Paper is better for news, mail and twitters, but thinking it will replace the book is like thinking television will replace the cinema.
You're rather limiting in your choice of media, aren't you? Why disallow a CD-ROM, or the more conventional tape drives?
I think the key here is with electronic data, it really is easy to make a copy. Copying a paperback requires much more effort. But once in electronic form, you can make hundreds of copies as easily as one. Keep backups. Make disposable copies. The shorter lifespan of the data is offset by the ease of duplication.
Oh, and be careful with that paperback, as those pages will become brittle with age. A paperback from 1958 will be difficult to read – I know, as I have been scanning older books to preserve them.
Slashdot Mirror
More often, people will bring it back to the point of sale, and harangue the personnel there. This is because it is easier to intimidate the person at the service counter than it is a voice over the phone.
If the stock is spoiled on the shelves, then the retailer will pull it and go after the manufacturer for delivering shoddy goods and ruining the retailer's rep. Retailers like to be proactive, as visibly taking corrective measures like this actually boost the reputation, and encourage customers to buy more.
Hmmm...
Maybe Staples is doing this on purpose, looking to kneecap the manufacturer as a way of earning brownie points? In this scenario, it's a net win as they come out looking flexible enough to try it, and then like a champion of their customers...
Actually, I can see another hack harming the company even more: the adhesive being prematurely triggered, rendering the disk unusable before the packaging is even opened. Hordes of irate customers will make it a nightmare.
Liberal means respect for individual freedoms and rights; most Americans confuse this with "libertarian". It has nothing to do with the size of government, but the role as referee. What you call liberal is more like social democracy, which sees government as a tool to promote fairness through supporting programmes. And further along the scale, there's the socialist philosophy that sees government as a force that should intervene in commerce, not merely referee.
So to use another metaphor, their scale didn't go to 11.
The ending of A Scanner Darkly was really close to the original story, and I wouldn't call it a happy ending. And yes, there was a studio behind that movie.
Then again, A Scanner Darkly wasn't a typical movie, and not intended to be a blockbuster.
Actually, there have been problems due to all liquids being poured into the same container. Some reacted to each other, and the fumes made people nauseous...
In another sense of the word, it is security theatre in that gun sellers use it as an argument to convince people to buy one. As far as security measures go, though, it has a low cost effectiveness.
But there is a different form of security theatre, true. Some people put signs up advertising the possession of a firearm, but not all of them actually own one...
I think you miss the point of "security theatre". As I replied to another poster, the increase in one area is offset by the increased risk in others. This makes firearms less cost-effective as a security measure.
Better investments would be in alarm systems, or simply in installing better windows and doors. The problem with a firearm as a theft deterrent is that the intruder doesn't know you have one, unless you advertise the fact. Even then, it is cheaper to advertise owning a gun without actually owning one...
The point is that having a firearm is security theatre in that it (theoretically) lowers the risk in one case (as a deterrent/self defence), but increases the overall risk due to accidents, usage in a quarrel, and so on.
Instead, the money invested in owning and maintaining a firearm is better invested in more secure windows and doors. That is why owning a handgun merely for protection is considered security theatre.
Iraq, on the other hand, did not declare war. In fact, both Iraq and Iran issued statements of condemnation. Where Hitler celebrated the attack against the USA, Saddam tried to mollify. Cuba never attacked us directly, yet surely you don't think that them having missiles aimed at the US is any reason to have missiles aimed back at Cuba. Cuba never got to that point, since Kennedy was able to handle that incident without firing a shot. Whether US missiles were programmed to hit Cuba after that is classified, but it is a safe bet that they were instead aimed at more strategic targets.
In fact, your comparing a deterrent posture to a pre-emptive invasion is simply wrong. Striking a defensive posture is not equal to taking offensive action.
You seem to meander, as your argument suggests that "insurgents" refers to a singular group working to one goal. In Iraq, that is demonstrably not the case.
There are several armed groups in Iraq using covert methods, and the jihadists were never a large factor. Instead, the main forces were the Ba'ath Party and former Iraqi army members, who stood down when the US-led invasion began. Many did this due to secret deals with the US, and thought they could return to normal once Saddam was deposed. When the USA disbanded the Army and kicked all Ba'ath members out of the government, all of a sudden a bunch of well-armed men were out of work and pissed at broken promises.
Later on, Arab nationalists came in force, to help "liberate" Iraq. The motives were not all religious, but many were inspired by regional patriotism. They were not invited, though; many faced open antipathy from the locals, and their numbers soon dropped.
And all this time, the simmering three-way feud between Sunni, Shi'a and Kurds keeps bubbling away, and centuries-old vendettas are hot again as there is no authority to suppress them any more.
So what was missing from this mix? A desire to destroy the USA, really. They just wanted the Americans to get out, as the occupation has made their lives worse. But the longer foreign troops stay there, resentment grows to the point of desiring "to give them a taste of their own medicine", to make Americans suffer like they suffer, to "see how they like it when they lose loved ones like we do".
Oh, and you do know that Al Qaeda had no presence in Iraq before the US-led invasion and occupation, and even now is only a bit player? Or have you forgotten that it was Saudi wackos that hijacked the planes?
But you aren't. You're creating insurgents out of formerly disinterested parties that in the past were even sympathetic. You are diverting resources and manpower away from defence of your own interests and assets, and weakening the overall defensive posture.
That is, if you are doing anything at all besides armchair cheerleading.
So while the US armed forces are busy overseas, expending their resources faster than they can be replenished, homegrown radical militias like the one that spawned Tim McVieh go unchecked, harbours go unmonitored and many other radical groups feel empowered by the fact that the USA cannot engage them.
So tell me again: why do you feel safer?
The most recent example of this was when the German Chaos Computer Club published the fingerprints of Wolfgang Schäuble, Germany's Innenminister (sort of like the UK home secretary or the USA's DHS head). They even distributed it as a film with their magazine, since there is no law against publishing fingerprints.
This English-language article at Heise Online gives all of the gory details...
I admit, I was a little simplistic but I stand by my two points. The first is that enforcement is not merely forensic, but also a deterrent. Granted, there are people who understand societal needs balancing personal needs, so deterrent is only a factor. But it is a huge factor in preventing crimes of opportunity.
My other point is that government enforcement also goes toward enforcing disputed claims of ownership. This does not always mean that the parties feel their property rights were violated, but that ownership is in question, but that both sides rely upon the government to judge in the dispute. Enforcement can go so far as impounding and seizing the property, or protecting the awarded owner as he claims the property. Again, this is also not a forensic but a corrective measure.
I recommend you consider the following: the government as enforcer is much like a referee. Just like a referee, the government does not interfere unless the rules are broken or if both sides request judgement over a rule. The referee must give players the benefit of the doubt about potentially committing a foul, and withhold their call until the foul is actually committed. If, say, a players stumbles towards the boundary, the referee will not call him out of bounds until he actually steps out of bounds. After all, he might regain his footing at the last second...
You ignore the far more common form of government enforcement, that of deterrent force. Most people never even attempt a burglary simply because of the threat of punishment.
Also, consider the other form of enforcement that a government holds: judicial arbitration. In cases of conflicting claims of property, the government holds the authority to decide and can enforce, up to and including seizure.
(By the way, you keep calling her a communist, which is silly. The hypothetical situation proposed is anarchy, a totally different form of government.) First off, what does the past have to do with anything? The people, their cultural framework, everything about them, are dead. We can have a few historians tell a few stories about them that entertains us, but such histories will always be through the viewpoint of our culture. The only way you can deal with property rights with any sort of intelligence or consistency is to look at what property is today. The past is what gives your claim legitimacy. Or is your title of ownership based solely on the force with which you hold it? If someone were to kill you and only your son would escape, would he have lost all rights to your property? After all, it is in the past.
You refer to culture, yet argue from a very selfish, almost solipsist standpoint. Remember that your arguments involve no help from the community. Well, again, you are confused. Property rights exist today. You are either killing someone to take their land, or you are not. The past is entirely irrelevant. Honestly, if you wanted to take this silly "past" approach back, I can always go further back in time. You see, if I have the first oxygen atom in me, that was ever made, and, so, everyone has stolen everything from me. Therefor, I should be Emperor of the Universe. I think you are the one confused, in trying to claim rights without recognising that those rights involve the community. If no one else recognises your right, then it is non-existent. The "king" enforces the will of the community, and that includes property ownership.
In this thread, you keep referring to your property rights as something you personally defend, yet you keep relying upon the mores of the community, the laws of the "king", to justify why you should be able to use force to defend your claim against other claimants. You can't have it both ways.
Without the power of the "king" backing your claim, your statement of ownership would only last until someone could overpower you, most likely in a gang. Do you really want that sort of brutal, paranoid life? What if your neighbour extends his garden, claiming your yard as his with a fence and his own guns? Can you even trust your wife not to kill you and thus claim title on your property? What about your kids? Without a "king" and his enforcement, who can keep this from happening?
I think you misunderstand, in that "king" is best seen as a shorthand for any government or ruler.
In the USA, your property rights are granted to you by the government, which also reserves the right to take property from you should it serve their purposes. Forcing you to sell your fields for a new highway, for example, or seizure by debtors.
Even your right to defend your property with arms is limited, really; you may not wantonly use it, and are expected to submit to legal authorities. You make it sound as if you forcibly hold your property through the threat of violence, when the reality is that the government's legal recognition of your title is a far greater reason. Nobody dares claim your property because the government at all levels recognises your title. Your guns would be of little use should someone else prove title to 'your' property, as then the government would enforce that claim, with overwhelming force.
Germany does not forbid Scientology per se, but it does deny the Church of Scientology church status. It isn't even considered a non-profit organisation, but a for-profit corporation. It also considers the CoS a potential threat to the constitution, and has it under observation to detect subversive and/or criminal activities.
Otherwise, most here in Germany consider it a for-profit scam.
Germany does not consider the Church of Scientology a church, but a for-profit organisation and thus denies them the tax status of churches.
Instead, they are considered a scam operation out to fleece clients using faith as a cover. Also they are under observation as a constitutional threat, since one of the church's stated beliefs is to subvert/overthrow the government.
You can believe in Scientology all you want, but to Germany the Church of Scientology just a corporation. It's the organisation that is restricted, not the religion.
Well, considering the number of fringe cults within Christianity, I would note that your statement almost commits a No True Scotsman* fallacy.
Instead, I would state that Christianity is a supergroup of religions, with many subgroups within it. For example. Jehova's Witnesses are Christian, and they really do believe that.
*("No Scotsman would buy that." "But MacDirmid bought one last week." "Well, MacDirmid's not a true Scotsman!")
Off the top of me head, I think one of the other mystic movements of the time would have won out in the end. My money would have been on the Orphic cults, though the Isis fans were also pretty popular. They were superficially similar to early Christianity, and cross-pollination between them and Christianity occurred up to and through Constantine's elevating Christianity to the winner's slot.
Of course, it would have been more interesting if Buddhism had been brought back from India by Alexander...
I think you've hit upon a trade-off in design: the haptics of a well-designed remote mean that you can find the button without looking, since the main buttons have a known place and a recognisable shape. But as functions crowd each other and more buttons appear, the ability to trust only touch drops. Touchscreen remotes can be designed to offer larger sweet spots, eliminating the need for haptic confirmation as they can hide and show buttons according to context. But this in return demands a clean and consistent interface design.
I think you missed his point: in previous iterations, fingers were too inexact on the existing hardware. Also, they couldn't distinguish all that well if two fingers hit the screen, and the originals did seem to have a lot of "aaargh, I didn't mean to do that!" in them. They were also much more expensive to make in the past, and more prone to wear out. So since mice were cheaper to make and easier to pinpoint, they won for the first decades.
Or are you suggesting that Picasso should have finger-painted and not used brushes? I mean, most digital artists use tablet interfaces... I myself am using a Wacom Intuos tablet at this very moment, so it's not as if every brush is shaped like a bar of soap. I suggest you consider in your metaphor that the mouse is the handle of the brush, but not the head. It may look clumsier than only using fingers, but the variety of tips offers better control in applying paint than fingertips do...
I actually want both: a book I can read and leave open on the desk, and thus not robbing screen space, and also a reference much like the PHP online handbook that I can search and be assured that the information is current.
I think the advantage of the electronic media isn't in the search, though it can be faster than the index. No, I see the real advantage in displaying information that has a short lifespan or may be in flux, like news or semi-animated text. E-Paper is better for news, mail and twitters, but thinking it will replace the book is like thinking television will replace the cinema.
You're rather limiting in your choice of media, aren't you? Why disallow a CD-ROM, or the more conventional tape drives?
I think the key here is with electronic data, it really is easy to make a copy. Copying a paperback requires much more effort. But once in electronic form, you can make hundreds of copies as easily as one. Keep backups. Make disposable copies. The shorter lifespan of the data is offset by the ease of duplication.
Oh, and be careful with that paperback, as those pages will become brittle with age. A paperback from 1958 will be difficult to read – I know, as I have been scanning older books to preserve them.