You claim that the way it's phrased makes your first possibility more likely, when in fact, the way it's phrased make the first possibility impossible, because e-Books are not printed books. I prefer not to pre-emptively assume an error has been made.
Further, given the rounding that can be assumed for both this kind of study and the way it's reported, 5.66% and 6% are effectively the same number, rendering the entire issue moot.
I wonder when the first Android ereader with e-ink will show up.
I don't know that Android would be a good OS for an e-Ink screen. Android's user experience is centered around the nature of the screen, and by switching to e-Ink, you give up multitouch, any kind of reasonable refresh rate, and color. You also necessarily lose the huge number of existing Android apps. Basically, you give up everything worth having about Android except Dalvik. At that point, why even call it Android?
Is it moral to steal from a thief who's trying to rob you? If you want my wallet and I get your gun away from you, you're not only going home broke, but naked.
Equating copyright infringement with theft is deceptive. Equating DRM with armed robbery is more deceptive.
The price signal therefore shows what the sustainable market price is. If your books retail at $100 and as many books are pirated (from users who would otherwise have paid), then the REAL market price of your book is near $50.
You can only derive the $50 figure if the relationship between supply and demand is perfectly elastic. In the real world, this is almost never the case. And when you compare imprudent business decisions on the part of publishers to communism, you really go off the deep end.
The interesting question for me is: if an individual has no moral objection to pirating eBooks, why would they pay any nonzero price for them? I can't come up with any kind of ethical framework in which the initial offer of $8.99 on the part of the customer, given the eventual torrenting, is reasonable.
In what way is expressing an opinion on what someone should or should not do the same as deciding what someone should or should not do? You are free to do what you want. Other people are free to tell you that they don't approve. Your rights are not infringed when other people exercise theirs, and despite what you seem to believe, your rights do not include the right not to be disagreed with.
I love my Nook, and I'm really happy with Barnes and Noble (their tech support is among the best I've ever dealt with, had a cracked bezel, they sent out a replacement with a mere five minutes of talking to some nice woman, with no hold time, and let me keep my Nook in the interim. Almost unheard of.), but I can't stand the fact that I don't actually own the books I buy.
Glad to hear it. My girlfriend had literally the exact same experience with her Kindle, right down to the excellent response. I really feel like competition is doing a lot of good here. That and, probably, the companies involved are smart enough to know that people won't buy e-books if they're not happy with their readers.
There are still a few of them out there, and there is still the nitch [sic] of spontaneously renting an old movie that Netflix and RedBox can't fill.
Netflix really can fill that niche, though, via instant watch. I really believe (or at least, hope) that the library of movies, especially older movies, available for instant watch will grow to the point that it's competitive with the older titles available in any local store.
Most stolen iPhones are jailbroken. It makes getting them on to a new contract easier. And a way to lock down or locate stolen phones that can work despite jailbreaking would be a very nice thing to have.
If Apple actually tried to use a process like this for what the tinfoil hat brigade is imagining, I'm sure they'd lose the lawsuit.
Just look at all the nearly empty boxes at supermarket, that are way too large for their content, or look larger in volume than they are. Same strategy.
Bullshit. Where is Nintendo lying about the capabilities of their hardware? Where are they selling something that doesn't do what it says on the box?
It always takes two. The fault lies just as much on the idots who buy it, as it lies on the fraudulent (in my eyes) companies.
How is the fact that Nintendo isn't putting the emphasis on graphics performance to the exclusion of other factors somehow dishonest? And how is basing the decision to buy a videogame system on something other than graphics performance stupid? And finally, what is the great crime here for which "fault" needs to be assigned? Marketing a product that you don't want to buy? What a grievous sin that is.
Indeed. So long, that is, as we understand that all forms of concentrated wealth arise from government interference -- landlordism, corporate ownership, inheritance, et cetera -- and eliminate them.
So government pre-dates concentrated wealth in the history of mankind? I find that claim difficult to accept. I believe that with no government interference, wealth will concentrate in the hands of those with the greatest willingness and ability to use force. The fact that this is currently the government does not escape me.
An one can point to numerous examples that show the fallacy of this thinking. The Debian openssl fiasco is a prime example.
That doesn't imply a fallacy (more accurately, you haven't provided a counterexample). It would if the original statement were: if you can see the source, you must trust it.
Of course, you can't point to an example of closed source code that is 100% trustworthy. Only closed source code that hasn't been proven untrustworthy yet.
Disclaimer: I use and write closed source code every day. I just try to be realistic about trust.
If you honestly believe trust is 100%, then how can you trust anything, ever?
Even for the things in which I invest the most trust (my family and close friends), the chance they could betray me is small but nonzero.
I tend to use source code availability as a mark in favor of trustworthiness. The developer is willing to expose the code for anyone to examine, it's less likely that they're hiding something. The chance that they still are even in the best of cases is, of course, not zero.
You are, of course, free to exercise your own criteria for trust. Consider the possibility that people can disagree with you without being liars.
I never understood the appeal of putting a government sanctioned monopoly in the hands of a profit-maximizing private entity. It's like the worst of both worlds. Don't even free market ideologues agree that competition is what makes the whole thing work in the first place?
Fair enough. But then: if you wipe the phone before the explosion, how can it be used as a detonator? And wiping the phone after the explosion seems unlikely.
I suppose you could find a way to make the explosion trigger on some signal from the phone that the remote wipe is complete, but (if I'm correct) the remote wipe won't erase the identifying contents of the SIM card anyway. Probably better to just use a disposable cell phone that doesn't have the contact list of the rest of your terrorist cell in memory in the first place.
How do you know for sure why your resumes are being chucked in the trash? My experience is not yours, but I've never had difficulty finding jobs as a programmer, even right out of college, despite the fact that my degree is in a mostly unrelated area. One way to do this is to sell your different background and perspective as a strength. It also helps if you have experience programming computers as a hobbyist, and I'm guessing that's true for you. If not, there's never a bad time to start hacking. That kind of thing can be enough to get you through the door at HR, and impress the people past them who have actual expertise.
Oh well.
Your tone here is somewhat self-defeating, and I honestly hope that doesn't come off in your resume or interviews. Honestly, most HR people I've worked with and known have been more concerned with personality and attitude rather than technical qualifications. Maybe it's not the best way to get qualified people into jobs, but the fact is that they are the gatekeepers. Presentation matters.
I have an EE degree. What's a good 2nd degree? CMP ENG or Comp Sci? I want to be eligible to apply for more jobs.
I don't think eligibility is the right concept when it comes to job applications. Apply for every job you want to do, and that you think you can do. Never let the assumption that you'll be dismissed out of hand prevent you from trying. Some (inept) HR managers will throw your resume in the trash, and what have you lost if they do? The cost of a stamp and the fifteen minutes it takes to customize a cover letter? But if you sell yourself in the right way, some (canny) HR people will at least consider you enough to give you an interview.
Slashdot Mirror
You claim that the way it's phrased makes your first possibility more likely, when in fact, the way it's phrased make the first possibility impossible, because e-Books are not printed books. I prefer not to pre-emptively assume an error has been made.
Further, given the rounding that can be assumed for both this kind of study and the way it's reported, 5.66% and 6% are effectively the same number, rendering the entire issue moot.
I wonder when the first Android ereader with e-ink will show up.
I don't know that Android would be a good OS for an e-Ink screen. Android's user experience is centered around the nature of the screen, and by switching to e-Ink, you give up multitouch, any kind of reasonable refresh rate, and color. You also necessarily lose the huge number of existing Android apps. Basically, you give up everything worth having about Android except Dalvik. At that point, why even call it Android?
Is it moral to steal from a thief who's trying to rob you? If you want my wallet and I get your gun away from you, you're not only going home broke, but naked.
Equating copyright infringement with theft is deceptive. Equating DRM with armed robbery is more deceptive.
The price signal therefore shows what the sustainable market price is. If your books retail at $100 and as many books are pirated (from users who would otherwise have paid), then the REAL market price of your book is near $50.
You can only derive the $50 figure if the relationship between supply and demand is perfectly elastic. In the real world, this is almost never the case. And when you compare imprudent business decisions on the part of publishers to communism, you really go off the deep end.
The interesting question for me is: if an individual has no moral objection to pirating eBooks, why would they pay any nonzero price for them? I can't come up with any kind of ethical framework in which the initial offer of $8.99 on the part of the customer, given the eventual torrenting, is reasonable.
In what way is expressing an opinion on what someone should or should not do the same as deciding what someone should or should not do? You are free to do what you want. Other people are free to tell you that they don't approve. Your rights are not infringed when other people exercise theirs, and despite what you seem to believe, your rights do not include the right not to be disagreed with.
I love my Nook, and I'm really happy with Barnes and Noble (their tech support is among the best I've ever dealt with, had a cracked bezel, they sent out a replacement with a mere five minutes of talking to some nice woman, with no hold time, and let me keep my Nook in the interim. Almost unheard of.), but I can't stand the fact that I don't actually own the books I buy.
Glad to hear it. My girlfriend had literally the exact same experience with her Kindle, right down to the excellent response. I really feel like competition is doing a lot of good here. That and, probably, the companies involved are smart enough to know that people won't buy e-books if they're not happy with their readers.
There are still a few of them out there, and there is still the nitch [sic] of spontaneously renting an old movie that Netflix and RedBox can't fill.
Netflix really can fill that niche, though, via instant watch. I really believe (or at least, hope) that the library of movies, especially older movies, available for instant watch will grow to the point that it's competitive with the older titles available in any local store.
Bush was not a conservative.
Just like Blagoevich was not an innocent man.
And Hitler was not a Socialist.
And there is no true Scotsman
By creating new definitions for the terms "liberal" and "conservative" to suit your whims, you've moved them far beyond the point of usefulness.
Even we on Earth are already emitting more electromagnetic radiation than the sun
This is way, way off. We're not even in the same ballpark as the sun. In fact, our ballpark and the sun's ballpark aren't on the same planet.
So he should stop using his browser of choice because if he doesn't, he may someday have to stop using his browser of choice.
Most stolen iPhones are jailbroken. It makes getting them on to a new contract easier. And a way to lock down or locate stolen phones that can work despite jailbreaking would be a very nice thing to have.
If Apple actually tried to use a process like this for what the tinfoil hat brigade is imagining, I'm sure they'd lose the lawsuit.
Not according to the article you're commenting on.
Just look at all the nearly empty boxes at supermarket, that are way too large for their content, or look larger in volume than they are. Same strategy.
Bullshit. Where is Nintendo lying about the capabilities of their hardware? Where are they selling something that doesn't do what it says on the box?
It always takes two. The fault lies just as much on the idots who buy it, as it lies on the fraudulent (in my eyes) companies.
How is the fact that Nintendo isn't putting the emphasis on graphics performance to the exclusion of other factors somehow dishonest? And how is basing the decision to buy a videogame system on something other than graphics performance stupid? And finally, what is the great crime here for which "fault" needs to be assigned? Marketing a product that you don't want to buy? What a grievous sin that is.
You willing to risk spending the only life you get waiting around for the next one?
Clever monsters have always been followed and adored. Foolish monsters are still often shunned and killed. The change you describe hasn't happened.
The entire point of the linked articles is that there is a widely used concept of "West" that has little to do with geographical position.
I have no idea how that could make you so very angry.
It proves nothing. Many conservatives and liberals are open to opposing viewpoints. Most are not.
Indeed. So long, that is, as we understand that all forms of concentrated wealth arise from government interference -- landlordism, corporate ownership, inheritance, et cetera -- and eliminate them.
So government pre-dates concentrated wealth in the history of mankind? I find that claim difficult to accept. I believe that with no government interference, wealth will concentrate in the hands of those with the greatest willingness and ability to use force. The fact that this is currently the government does not escape me.
The most closed minded people I know are Family Values Conservatives. We should both try to meet new people.
An one can point to numerous examples that show the fallacy of this thinking. The Debian openssl fiasco is a prime example.
That doesn't imply a fallacy (more accurately, you haven't provided a counterexample). It would if the original statement were: if you can see the source, you must trust it.
Of course, you can't point to an example of closed source code that is 100% trustworthy. Only closed source code that hasn't been proven untrustworthy yet.
Disclaimer: I use and write closed source code every day. I just try to be realistic about trust.
If you honestly believe trust is 100%, then how can you trust anything, ever?
Even for the things in which I invest the most trust (my family and close friends), the chance they could betray me is small but nonzero.
I tend to use source code availability as a mark in favor of trustworthiness. The developer is willing to expose the code for anyone to examine, it's less likely that they're hiding something. The chance that they still are even in the best of cases is, of course, not zero.
You are, of course, free to exercise your own criteria for trust. Consider the possibility that people can disagree with you without being liars.
I never understood the appeal of putting a government sanctioned monopoly in the hands of a profit-maximizing private entity. It's like the worst of both worlds. Don't even free market ideologues agree that competition is what makes the whole thing work in the first place?
Fair enough. But then: if you wipe the phone before the explosion, how can it be used as a detonator? And wiping the phone after the explosion seems unlikely.
I suppose you could find a way to make the explosion trigger on some signal from the phone that the remote wipe is complete, but (if I'm correct) the remote wipe won't erase the identifying contents of the SIM card anyway. Probably better to just use a disposable cell phone that doesn't have the contact list of the rest of your terrorist cell in memory in the first place.
Why would you bother remotely wiping a phone you're going to blow up anyway?
How do you know for sure why your resumes are being chucked in the trash? My experience is not yours, but I've never had difficulty finding jobs as a programmer, even right out of college, despite the fact that my degree is in a mostly unrelated area. One way to do this is to sell your different background and perspective as a strength. It also helps if you have experience programming computers as a hobbyist, and I'm guessing that's true for you. If not, there's never a bad time to start hacking. That kind of thing can be enough to get you through the door at HR, and impress the people past them who have actual expertise.
Oh well.
Your tone here is somewhat self-defeating, and I honestly hope that doesn't come off in your resume or interviews. Honestly, most HR people I've worked with and known have been more concerned with personality and attitude rather than technical qualifications. Maybe it's not the best way to get qualified people into jobs, but the fact is that they are the gatekeepers. Presentation matters.
I have an EE degree. What's a good 2nd degree? CMP ENG or Comp Sci? I want to be eligible to apply for more jobs.
I don't think eligibility is the right concept when it comes to job applications. Apply for every job you want to do, and that you think you can do. Never let the assumption that you'll be dismissed out of hand prevent you from trying. Some (inept) HR managers will throw your resume in the trash, and what have you lost if they do? The cost of a stamp and the fifteen minutes it takes to customize a cover letter? But if you sell yourself in the right way, some (canny) HR people will at least consider you enough to give you an interview.