But he writes reference material. Many people just want to know something and decide to take the cash hit since they know they will get the info they need. If they can get it for free, they are probably more likely to justify doing so than with a fiction novel as you don't normally decide to read only a few parts of a novel -- you intend to make use of the entire work.
Last time I checked, library books were a limited supply. You can only lend a book out to one person at a time, and only for a certain amount of time. If libraries gave away unlimited free copies, I'm sure more people would have a problem with them cutting into sales.
Do we really need to point out the obvious -- that perhaps David Pogue's books are more popular than whatever this guy is talking about?
I don't get too many people copying photos from my site, but that doesn't mean there aren't a lot of Ansel Adams' photos scattered around the net in violation of copyright.
If David Pogue doesn't want to risk a loss in sales because of piracy of ebooks, then at least he has simply decided not to make an ebook available, rather than jump on the pro-DRM bandwagon. He has to put food on the table and it's his reasonable right to make such a decision.
Of course, as many of the comments here already confirm, I'm sure this forum will simply end up twisting this into some sort of anti-Pogue, anti-DRM argument, making him out to be the same as the RIAA. I mean, look at WallyBeerDrinker and his knee-jerk comment about libraries (which I would normally agree with, BTW), or d34thm0nk3y.
I think that assuming they all think the same is one problem here. I'm sure many, maybe most, may not see them as man-made, but to dump them all in one boat is no different to dumping people in modern society in one boat. Making assumptions has it's place, but when it comes to your own view on how the world is, I tend to find that they can pile up and deceive you. One assumption being made here is that they think in the same terms as we do, such as the difference between man-made, magic, and god. Depending on how they view the world, what we see in our interpretation could easily be a mistranslation.
But there are also those in our modern culture who think there is probably a rational explanation for UFOs that may not involve aliens at all. Or are you suggesting that because they seem primitive, they must all be less rational?
What they're missing is that the point of vision, and perception in general, isn't to give us information about the rays of light that hit the retina. What vision does is give us information about the objects in our environment, which reflect or emit rays of light.
But that makes assumptions about the evolution of vision.
But in order to see red best, you need to be able to detect what is not red. If you want to see why, take a photo of a colourful scene then create two versions in Photoshop, make one greyscale, then on the other one, use the channels pallet to look at each channel separately. A bright red object in the red channel will look the same as a white object, while the other channels will show it as very dark. Obviously, human vision doesn't work exactly like this, but the same principle still applies: The best way to detect red is not just to see red in an otherwise grey world, but to have it contrast with other colours.
Of course, I don't entirely buy the blushing theory, either. And this isn't necessarily saying anything about the way vision actually evolved, as well. But I do think it shows that your reasoning in this case is wrong, even if you are right. The food theory has always made more sense to me when you look at how other species have evolved.
But in reality, things are more complicated than that and the differences between them have different consequences. I'm not trying to argue in favor of either of them, but if you are trying to have a real discussion here rather than just ranting, then you need to accept that you can't use those 3 words interchangeably. Anarcho-communism doesn't require central control. And one could even call some forms of objectivism as authoritarian. A free market is a complex thing, and anyone who thinks that this sort of thing is as simple as capitalism vs. communism is a fool, IMHO.
I would have thought that was irrelevant from an academic point. I mean, we can sit here all day and discuss the links between them, if one can lead to another, and how they have been implemented throughout history, but they still represent different things. If you think they are the same thing, then I think you're either naive or bias. You might as well dump anarcho-capitalism in with objectivism.
I'd rather they took their time over 3 days and fix it properly than break functionality or introduce another security issue because of a mad rush. I'm just trying to be realistic.
But you're making assumptions about their perspective on the world, with no evidence to back it up. Why could they not see it as some giant, fake bird? Where is the logic that they must assume it is a deity or anything other-worldly?
Perhaps that's how religion works for some people, but for others, it works quite a bit differently and has no problems with science and other rational things. Also, Why would they simply not see it as some man-made contraption? Running on magic, perhaps...
Featureless? What important features is it missing? Not all of use want to send MMS, or want a camera, or video, or need a physical keyboard. The fact that it has a decent web browser and media player is enough of a feature for me.
Yeah, but the thing is, this is news because those features are finally coming to a phone that has other decent features, such as a web browser that doesn't suck. It's a bit unfair to say that the iPhone is playing catch-up in the way you have put it when it's clear they're ahead of everyone else in some important areas.
Given how SMS has really taken off, I don't think video is going to be the next big thing. Sure it will have its uses, but it's not what people are looking for most of the time.
I hardly ever use my Treo 600 for actual voice calls and I there are many, many other people who are in the same boat. Perhaps the TXTing craze didn't take off in the US, but in many places, people mainly use their phones for SMS -- it's cheaper for starters.
It's also news to me that the iPhone is doing badly. Last time I checked, they sold quite a lot, and you'd be a fool to decide this early on that it's anywhere near a failure. But I guess that is why you ticked the "Post Anonymously" box this time?
The iPhone has always been more of a PDA than a phone. Just look at the way it was designed -- not just the hardware, but the software that comes with it. If you were expecting simply a good phone, then you were looking at the wrong product.
How can you seriously say they've screwed themselves when they've been so successful despite being with AT&T? And what about the rest of the world? They aren't planning to be exclusive in many other countries, even if you were right. It's almost as if you think Apple wanted to only go with AT&T.
The problem is, most people won't find the iPhone crippled, and those that go with an open platform will quickly find out why the iPhone is crippled. Unless you are only talking about the same people who use Linux.
As Ubuntu has shown, you no longer have to be a geek to use the advanced feature set of an open platform.
But most people don't want the advanced feature set. They want a basic one that works well with everything, all the time.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought many were still owned by his family or something. But I could be wrong. It's only an analogy.
Never had that problem before. Perhaps I just have m4d pr1ng3ls sk1llz or something? I only buy them occasionally.
But he writes reference material. Many people just want to know something and decide to take the cash hit since they know they will get the info they need. If they can get it for free, they are probably more likely to justify doing so than with a fiction novel as you don't normally decide to read only a few parts of a novel -- you intend to make use of the entire work.
Last time I checked, library books were a limited supply. You can only lend a book out to one person at a time, and only for a certain amount of time. If libraries gave away unlimited free copies, I'm sure more people would have a problem with them cutting into sales.
Do we really need to point out the obvious -- that perhaps David Pogue's books are more popular than whatever this guy is talking about?
I don't get too many people copying photos from my site, but that doesn't mean there aren't a lot of Ansel Adams' photos scattered around the net in violation of copyright.
If David Pogue doesn't want to risk a loss in sales because of piracy of ebooks, then at least he has simply decided not to make an ebook available, rather than jump on the pro-DRM bandwagon. He has to put food on the table and it's his reasonable right to make such a decision.
Of course, as many of the comments here already confirm, I'm sure this forum will simply end up twisting this into some sort of anti-Pogue, anti-DRM argument, making him out to be the same as the RIAA. I mean, look at WallyBeerDrinker and his knee-jerk comment about libraries (which I would normally agree with, BTW), or d34thm0nk3y.
I think that assuming they all think the same is one problem here. I'm sure many, maybe most, may not see them as man-made, but to dump them all in one boat is no different to dumping people in modern society in one boat. Making assumptions has it's place, but when it comes to your own view on how the world is, I tend to find that they can pile up and deceive you. One assumption being made here is that they think in the same terms as we do, such as the difference between man-made, magic, and god. Depending on how they view the world, what we see in our interpretation could easily be a mistranslation.
But there are also those in our modern culture who think there is probably a rational explanation for UFOs that may not involve aliens at all. Or are you suggesting that because they seem primitive, they must all be less rational?
15? Where are the other 10? I think only 3 of them were supposed to be obvious.
What they're missing is that the point of vision, and perception in general, isn't to give us information about the rays of light that hit the retina. What vision does is give us information about the objects in our environment, which reflect or emit rays of light.
But that makes assumptions about the evolution of vision.
But in order to see red best, you need to be able to detect what is not red. If you want to see why, take a photo of a colourful scene then create two versions in Photoshop, make one greyscale, then on the other one, use the channels pallet to look at each channel separately. A bright red object in the red channel will look the same as a white object, while the other channels will show it as very dark. Obviously, human vision doesn't work exactly like this, but the same principle still applies: The best way to detect red is not just to see red in an otherwise grey world, but to have it contrast with other colours.
Of course, I don't entirely buy the blushing theory, either. And this isn't necessarily saying anything about the way vision actually evolved, as well. But I do think it shows that your reasoning in this case is wrong, even if you are right. The food theory has always made more sense to me when you look at how other species have evolved.
But in reality, things are more complicated than that and the differences between them have different consequences. I'm not trying to argue in favor of either of them, but if you are trying to have a real discussion here rather than just ranting, then you need to accept that you can't use those 3 words interchangeably. Anarcho-communism doesn't require central control. And one could even call some forms of objectivism as authoritarian. A free market is a complex thing, and anyone who thinks that this sort of thing is as simple as capitalism vs. communism is a fool, IMHO.
I would have thought that was irrelevant from an academic point. I mean, we can sit here all day and discuss the links between them, if one can lead to another, and how they have been implemented throughout history, but they still represent different things. If you think they are the same thing, then I think you're either naive or bias. You might as well dump anarcho-capitalism in with objectivism.
Have you tried tilting the can?
But authoritarianism and communism are different things.
I'd rather they took their time over 3 days and fix it properly than break functionality or introduce another security issue because of a mad rush. I'm just trying to be realistic.
But you're making assumptions about their perspective on the world, with no evidence to back it up. Why could they not see it as some giant, fake bird? Where is the logic that they must assume it is a deity or anything other-worldly?
Perhaps that's how religion works for some people, but for others, it works quite a bit differently and has no problems with science and other rational things. Also, Why would they simply not see it as some man-made contraption? Running on magic, perhaps...
Featureless? What important features is it missing? Not all of use want to send MMS, or want a camera, or video, or need a physical keyboard. The fact that it has a decent web browser and media player is enough of a feature for me.
Yeah, but the thing is, this is news because those features are finally coming to a phone that has other decent features, such as a web browser that doesn't suck. It's a bit unfair to say that the iPhone is playing catch-up in the way you have put it when it's clear they're ahead of everyone else in some important areas.
Given how SMS has really taken off, I don't think video is going to be the next big thing. Sure it will have its uses, but it's not what people are looking for most of the time.
I hardly ever use my Treo 600 for actual voice calls and I there are many, many other people who are in the same boat. Perhaps the TXTing craze didn't take off in the US, but in many places, people mainly use their phones for SMS -- it's cheaper for starters.
It's also news to me that the iPhone is doing badly. Last time I checked, they sold quite a lot, and you'd be a fool to decide this early on that it's anywhere near a failure. But I guess that is why you ticked the "Post Anonymously" box this time?
The iPhone has always been more of a PDA than a phone. Just look at the way it was designed -- not just the hardware, but the software that comes with it. If you were expecting simply a good phone, then you were looking at the wrong product.
How can you seriously say they've screwed themselves when they've been so successful despite being with AT&T? And what about the rest of the world? They aren't planning to be exclusive in many other countries, even if you were right. It's almost as if you think Apple wanted to only go with AT&T.
The problem is, most people won't find the iPhone crippled, and those that go with an open platform will quickly find out why the iPhone is crippled. Unless you are only talking about the same people who use Linux.
As Ubuntu has shown, you no longer have to be a geek to use the advanced feature set of an open platform.
But most people don't want the advanced feature set. They want a basic one that works well with everything, all the time.
Let me know when a well designed platform actually comes along. I'm still waiting for Linux on the desktop in the meantime.
Or 66% of the over $1000 computer market. Which isn't too bad, really. And then there's the iPod.