Most people don't care about DRM, copylefts, any of that bollocks, they just don't like the inconvenience and expense of ebooks.
As far as free ebooks go, my theory is there's so much crap that gets printed these days, that if a book can't get printed at all, it must be really really bad.
I can leave a book on a table at work and not worry about it being stolen, no-one going to steal my boring book worth a few quid. However an ebook reader worth hundreds of pounds? Gone before you've turned your back.
Ebooks are a solution looking for a problem. I don't need to carry an entire library with me, it's not like you can read a 900 page book in one eight-hour shift (even if you're not doing any work).
Backlit displays? Reading in the dark is bad for your eyes, and I have indoor electricity, rendering that point moot anyway. Search? No need for it. Tiny display? No thanks. Having to wrestle with an interface? No thanks.
The main problem of that is that it would need a large amount of land in order to build it, not to mention expensive (and fragile) windows. The rooms with the big windows will let a lot of noise in from outside. I wouldn't want to be trying to sleep with the noise of traffic going past coming in through the glass unhindered. OK if you live in the sticks I suppose.
I also would have thought that the temperature in the house will be different in different areas of the house. What happens if it's freezing cold on one side of the house and warm on the other? Are there mechanisms for warming up the cold parts?
You've been given a LIFE sentence, you should be grateful you're outside at all. Occasionally being stopped and searched or being in a prison cell? I wonder which is preferable...
However, 0% of people actually care about someone saying degrees Kelvin, so the article, at 80%, is infinitely more wrong.
Of course, 0% is rounded to cut out the obscure minority of attention-seeking nob-heads who have to stick their unnecessary pedantry everywhere it's not wanted.
You're joking right? People in America have never been richer. Even the poor are much much better off than they used to be. But maybe decades ago, people were cleverer with their money, and didn't blow it on giant TVs, air conditioning etc?
We also, for the most part, didn't have the absolute poverty that we have today.
Can any slashdotter tell me why despite the fact that Katrina was known to be coming, and that it would be huge, there was so much devastation amid confusion without clear leadership? This is all part of the incompetence I mentioned above.
I blame the federal/state system. Even today, no-one can agree whether the state or the national government are responsible for it. Surely such things should have been spelt out in the constitution?
Perhaps a new ammendment is needed delegating responsiblity for disasters. It's no good one day screaming about how the state is independent and the national government should leave them alone, then the next day asking them to come and help you.
How can an intellectual believe in magical faries, that the earth is six thousand years old, and that when you die you go to an afterlife, despite absolutely no evidence for any of that? All because of a badly-translated, unverified book written thousands of years ago? That's no intellectual.
What a load of crap. This article has NOTHING to with copyright. Nothing at all. Why did you bring it up at all? Please tell me exactly how copyright will bring down the film industry? Here's a hint: it won't.
In order to distribute a movie in the States, you have to be part of the union's preferred cartels. If you attempt to make a movie outside of their control, you'll generally not see wide distribution. Copyright at its finest, here.
Please tell me what exactly copyright has to do with distribution cartels? The answer is, absolutely fucking nothing.
For those who are familiar with my typical rants and raves on Slashdot, this post isn't much different. I'm the sole anti-copyright activist in most threads
Is there anything more irritating than someone with a hobby horse who has to bring it up everywhere it's not relevant? You're the modern day equivalent of the Onion's 'Area Man Constantly Mentioning He Doesn't Own A Television', except you're constantly mentioning you hate copyright, even though no-one cares.
The Internet will slowly (or quickly) bring the distribution cartels down,
People are not queueing up to spend days downloading a grainy film to watch on a PC monitor.
as I don't really see much reason to support those (ie, Hollywood) who stole from me over the decades I've lived.
Stole? I didn't realise they kidnapped you, took you to the cinema and forced you to pay to watch films there. Nor did they force you to buy DVDs or videos.
Compare the cost of replacing the workstation you 'borrowed', the work that's not done by the user of said workstation, the costs of paying the technician to get the computer, work out what's wrong with it, swap around all the parts, buy a replacement computer etc. and you're not saving much money on having a real Cisco router in the first place.
In many places, convenience and reliability are worth a lot of money.
Mail services largely agree that they should have the right to offer people sending mail the option of paying for faster delivery of their content, i.e. first-class stamps.
That's where the market wants to go. So other than government regulation, what's your solution?
Only on Slashdot could a completely unrelated article about arcade games turn into a rant about copyright. Get over it, there are millions of articles where you can get on your hobby horse, I'm here to read about arcade games.
Having a new piece of technology doesn't give you the right to use it everywhere you want.
There are tunnels underground where you can't get mobile access, should the owners of such tunnels have to put in phone masts so doctors on call can be contacted?
When you get a piece of hardware, it usually comes with a CD. In Windows, you put the CD in, it installs the drivers, job done. In Linux? Get out the search engine and a flask of tea.
I think AC got it best towards silencing the competition in the business world:
That link is interesting, seeing how Nintendo's marketshare has gone down with every generation, whilst Sony and Microsoft, relative newcomers, have beaten them down into third place.
A solid product kills the competition ten-fold rather than advertising the hell out of it.
Does it fuck, most people don't even try out every product to decide what's best, they get what they see on TV and stick with it.
A successful company shouldn't need to advertise heavily.
Companies are successful BECAUSE they advertise heavily. Or do you think they spend all that money just for a laugh?
Slashdot Mirror
Most people don't care about DRM, copylefts, any of that bollocks, they just don't like the inconvenience and expense of ebooks.
As far as free ebooks go, my theory is there's so much crap that gets printed these days, that if a book can't get printed at all, it must be really really bad.
I can leave a book on a table at work and not worry about it being stolen, no-one going to steal my boring book worth a few quid. However an ebook reader worth hundreds of pounds? Gone before you've turned your back.
Ebooks are a solution looking for a problem. I don't need to carry an entire library with me, it's not like you can read a 900 page book in one eight-hour shift (even if you're not doing any work).
Backlit displays? Reading in the dark is bad for your eyes, and I have indoor electricity, rendering that point moot anyway. Search? No need for it. Tiny display? No thanks. Having to wrestle with an interface? No thanks.
The main problem of that is that it would need a large amount of land in order to build it, not to mention expensive (and fragile) windows. The rooms with the big windows will let a lot of noise in from outside. I wouldn't want to be trying to sleep with the noise of traffic going past coming in through the glass unhindered. OK if you live in the sticks I suppose.
I also would have thought that the temperature in the house will be different in different areas of the house. What happens if it's freezing cold on one side of the house and warm on the other? Are there mechanisms for warming up the cold parts?
So in other words, it's the state, or the people of New Orleans, who are responsible? This seems to exonerate Bush.
Come to Florida. An air conditioner is required most of the year.
Air conditioning was only invented in the last century. Surely it was inhabited for thousands of years before?
You've been given a LIFE sentence, you should be grateful you're outside at all. Occasionally being stopped and searched or being in a prison cell? I wonder which is preferable...
However, 0% of people actually care about someone saying degrees Kelvin, so the article, at 80%, is infinitely more wrong.
Of course, 0% is rounded to cut out the obscure minority of attention-seeking nob-heads who have to stick their unnecessary pedantry everywhere it's not wanted.
Decades ago, Americans weren't this poor.
You're joking right? People in America have never been richer. Even the poor are much much better off than they used to be. But maybe decades ago, people were cleverer with their money, and didn't blow it on giant TVs, air conditioning etc?
We also, for the most part, didn't have the absolute poverty that we have today.
What is your evidence for this?
Can any slashdotter tell me why despite the fact that Katrina was known to be coming, and that it would be huge, there was so much devastation amid confusion without clear leadership? This is all part of the incompetence I mentioned above.
I blame the federal/state system. Even today, no-one can agree whether the state or the national government are responsible for it. Surely such things should have been spelt out in the constitution?
Perhaps a new ammendment is needed delegating responsiblity for disasters. It's no good one day screaming about how the state is independent and the national government should leave them alone, then the next day asking them to come and help you.
How can an intellectual believe in magical faries, that the earth is six thousand years old, and that when you die you go to an afterlife, despite absolutely no evidence for any of that? All because of a badly-translated, unverified book written thousands of years ago? That's no intellectual.
You're assuming you know what part of the computer has actually gone wrong.
What a load of crap. This article has NOTHING to with copyright. Nothing at all. Why did you bring it up at all? Please tell me exactly how copyright will bring down the film industry? Here's a hint: it won't.
In order to distribute a movie in the States, you have to be part of the union's preferred cartels. If you attempt to make a movie outside of their control, you'll generally not see wide distribution. Copyright at its finest, here.
Please tell me what exactly copyright has to do with distribution cartels? The answer is, absolutely fucking nothing.
For those who are familiar with my typical rants and raves on Slashdot, this post isn't much different. I'm the sole anti-copyright activist in most threads
Is there anything more irritating than someone with a hobby horse who has to bring it up everywhere it's not relevant? You're the modern day equivalent of the Onion's 'Area Man Constantly Mentioning He Doesn't Own A Television', except you're constantly mentioning you hate copyright, even though no-one cares.
The Internet will slowly (or quickly) bring the distribution cartels down,
People are not queueing up to spend days downloading a grainy film to watch on a PC monitor.
as I don't really see much reason to support those (ie, Hollywood) who stole from me over the decades I've lived.
Stole? I didn't realise they kidnapped you, took you to the cinema and forced you to pay to watch films there. Nor did they force you to buy DVDs or videos.
Please look up 'hyperbole'.
Compare the cost of replacing the workstation you 'borrowed', the work that's not done by the user of said workstation, the costs of paying the technician to get the computer, work out what's wrong with it, swap around all the parts, buy a replacement computer etc. and you're not saving much money on having a real Cisco router in the first place.
In many places, convenience and reliability are worth a lot of money.
Mail services largely agree that they should have the right to offer people sending mail the option of paying for faster delivery of their content, i.e. first-class stamps.
That's where the market wants to go. So other than government regulation, what's your solution?
Only on Slashdot could a completely unrelated article about arcade games turn into a rant about copyright. Get over it, there are millions of articles where you can get on your hobby horse, I'm here to read about arcade games.
No, just don't let them in. The only purpose for a baby in a cinema is to annoy other people. People who take babies into such places are vermin.
Having a new piece of technology doesn't give you the right to use it everywhere you want.
There are tunnels underground where you can't get mobile access, should the owners of such tunnels have to put in phone masts so doctors on call can be contacted?
1. Silence is priceless.
2. If you need to make an emergency call, then go outside? On call? Then don't go into a nanotube room.
When you get a piece of hardware, it usually comes with a CD. In Windows, you put the CD in, it installs the drivers, job done. In Linux? Get out the search engine and a flask of tea.
Anyone can come up with ideas, it's the implementation that's the hard bit.
Metal cups make the brew taste funny.
Google have said themselves that they don't care about stockholders. But why would they when they're dumping billions worth of stock every month?
On a man it's called the 'barse', as it's between your bollocks and your arse.
On a woman it's known as a 'biff', because it's what your balls 'biff' against.
What that King Kong running around and tell me that looks realistic. It's like something out of Shrek.
I think AC got it best towards silencing the competition in the business world:
That link is interesting, seeing how Nintendo's marketshare has gone down with every generation, whilst Sony and Microsoft, relative newcomers, have beaten them down into third place.
A solid product kills the competition ten-fold rather than advertising the hell out of it.
Does it fuck, most people don't even try out every product to decide what's best, they get what they see on TV and stick with it.
A successful company shouldn't need to advertise heavily.
Companies are successful BECAUSE they advertise heavily. Or do you think they spend all that money just for a laugh?