Without a serious price advantage, I'd much rather have a physical book I can read, lend, give, or sell. In fact, I'd rather have the physical book in a lot of ways over digital.
That said, the convenience of an ebook is great. The reading experience not as much.
This is a suggestion for not just ebooks but tablets as a whole. Phones too: Make matte screens rather than gloss. Or at least anti-reflective screens. I can't adequately describe the frustration of trying to use either device outdoors in the sun, but I have frequently enjoyed books in such circumstances.
This isn't about admitting things. It's about the government's extremely extended definition of "truth". And it's been going on for decades. The lies have simply piled so high that they can't even keep their story straight, just like the old quote goes.
"Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive." ~Sir Walter Scott
It accomplishes quite a bit, I believe. But none of their stated goals, and none consistent with the United States Constitution. They've gone way beyond plausible deniability at this point.
I never did find a guide that works for that. I'll have to go do another hunt in that case. All the methods I've tried were unsuccessful and it always kept asking to format my card.
It's one thing to send crap to where something might be alive and capable of reading it, but a planet with no known intelligent life that we've scouted out pretty well (for what it is)? What a waste of time.
The increasing people who can't tell a product review from a seller review (especially places with reseller marketplaces like Amazon) really ruins the whole star system.
Agreed. If you don't separate these idiots from the legitimate 1-star for DOA, RMA'd, DOA again, you'll just be led astray. I know I'd certainly 1-star for two DOAs in a row on factory-sealed items.
and I'll stop complaining about lack of SD slots. Especially since the SD cards mostly seem to run crappy FAT file systems. There's really no excuse for that.
You've repeatedly failed to make your case, and then you started repeating your arguments mixed with personal attacks and straw men. By default, I will side against restrictions upon things unless a solid case is made in favour of a certain restriction.
I don't have to debate in favour of freedom when you can't make a solid case against it.
On the other hand if you have a bad experience and all the other product reviews are good you may have a moment of self doubt (did I mess up with the product) which makes you less willing to post a negative review.
What internet have you been hanging out on? From what I've seen, that doesn't stop anyone.
I can see that I am once again playing chess with a pigeon. I'm done here. You're going in circles and then throwing around ad hominems and straw men to pretend you have the moral high ground. Good job, bro.
When I check reviews, one of the first things I do is check the negative reviews. Why? Because half the one-stars are often jackasses with no clue what product and/or service they were buying. Other times, knowledgable and otherwise reasonable people have found the service or product being rated to be inadequate in some significant way.
And then I look for high ratings to see if they are reviewing the product in a reasonable manner. From there, I make my own decisions regarding the validity of both sides.
Anyone who decides just based on the stars/review-based numbers is a fool.
Yes, exactly. In today's world, everyone is probably a felon and doesn't even realize it. That's exactly why it behoves us all to jealously guard our privacy, even when we shouldn't have to. It's not paranoia, it's simple prudence. I don't lock my doors because I think I'll be robbed. I lock my doors because I'd be foolish not to.
In this particular case, I can't particularly complain. Even without computer-specific laws, I'd consider this to be criminal mischief. Truly stunning though when compared to Aaron Swartz's situation...
Slashdot Mirror
it's almost as if you're trying to get people to use something else.
Ah, but that is indeed a very creative redefinition of abuse. It adds a qualifier that does not belong.
Without a serious price advantage, I'd much rather have a physical book I can read, lend, give, or sell. In fact, I'd rather have the physical book in a lot of ways over digital.
That said, the convenience of an ebook is great. The reading experience not as much.
This is a suggestion for not just ebooks but tablets as a whole. Phones too: Make matte screens rather than gloss. Or at least anti-reflective screens. I can't adequately describe the frustration of trying to use either device outdoors in the sun, but I have frequently enjoyed books in such circumstances.
This isn't about admitting things. It's about the government's extremely extended definition of "truth". And it's been going on for decades. The lies have simply piled so high that they can't even keep their story straight, just like the old quote goes.
"Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive." ~Sir Walter Scott
I thought their safeguard against the program being abused was to creatively redefine the term "abuse".
It accomplishes quite a bit, I believe. But none of their stated goals, and none consistent with the United States Constitution. They've gone way beyond plausible deniability at this point.
Agreed. The problem is, Obama's idea of transparent is to attack Lavabit.
Most Americans are barely capable of making an informed vote, much less being "ready for digital voting".
That's why we're $17 trillion in debt and running a massive defecit.
I never did find a guide that works for that. I'll have to go do another hunt in that case. All the methods I've tried were unsuccessful and it always kept asking to format my card.
It's one thing to send crap to where something might be alive and capable of reading it, but a planet with no known intelligent life that we've scouted out pretty well (for what it is)? What a waste of time.
The increasing people who can't tell a product review from a seller review (especially places with reseller marketplaces like Amazon) really ruins the whole star system.
Agreed. If you don't separate these idiots from the legitimate 1-star for DOA, RMA'd, DOA again, you'll just be led astray. I know I'd certainly 1-star for two DOAs in a row on factory-sealed items.
Agreed, but not only on FAT. There's still no excuse for that being our only option.
and I'll stop complaining about lack of SD slots. Especially since the SD cards mostly seem to run crappy FAT file systems. There's really no excuse for that.
On this, sir, we agree!
You've repeatedly failed to make your case, and then you started repeating your arguments mixed with personal attacks and straw men. By default, I will side against restrictions upon things unless a solid case is made in favour of a certain restriction.
I don't have to debate in favour of freedom when you can't make a solid case against it.
I can see that I am once again playing chess with a pigeon. I'm done here. You're going in circles and then throwing around ad hominems and straw men to pretend you have the moral high ground. Good job, bro.
That's precisely why, in today's society, exercising one's basic, constitutionally protected civil rights is called "probable cause".
When I check reviews, one of the first things I do is check the negative reviews. Why? Because half the one-stars are often jackasses with no clue what product and/or service they were buying. Other times, knowledgable and otherwise reasonable people have found the service or product being rated to be inadequate in some significant way.
And then I look for high ratings to see if they are reviewing the product in a reasonable manner. From there, I make my own decisions regarding the validity of both sides.
Anyone who decides just based on the stars/review-based numbers is a fool.
Yes, exactly. In today's world, everyone is probably a felon and doesn't even realize it. That's exactly why it behoves us all to jealously guard our privacy, even when we shouldn't have to. It's not paranoia, it's simple prudence. I don't lock my doors because I think I'll be robbed. I lock my doors because I'd be foolish not to.
That's exactly what this is.
In this particular case, I can't particularly complain. Even without computer-specific laws, I'd consider this to be criminal mischief. Truly stunning though when compared to Aaron Swartz's situation...
That's certainly consistent with the level of what most of my classmates seemed to be getting done.
The unfortunate thing is, despite this being a huge endorsement for their services, those services are no longer available from them.