You loan a book. Amazon removes if from your kindle. Amazon remembers you owned it in a computer file. Amazon makes an entry in your friend's account saying they can download and read the book. When they tell their kindle to download, they get a copy that works for 14 days.
After 14 days, their copy stops working. You may then download your copy again.
Its all a book keeping exercise. Doesn't matter if actual transfer fails. Nothing is transfered between users.
Both Amazon and B&N maintain a virtual book shelf for your purchases. As long as they are in business, you can re-download the books you purchased, to stock the replacement Nook/Kindle after dropping the original in the lake or whatever.
Further, you can backup your own purchase at any time. And you can restore it to any device that support the decryption method.
Both B&N and Amazon use the same technique. Encrypt the book with your name and Credit card number. Things you would not be willing to give to strangers. You can always copy your ebooks to your friend's reader, open the book and answer the questions (name and card number) then hand the reader back. It needs to be done exactly once, and the decryption key is saved (not the actual credit card number).
As the Economist rightly notes, this won't stand. Anti-features (including DRM) only need to be removed once. Argue however much you like about the rights of the author.
The thing is, the system set up by Barnes and Noble and copied by Amazon rendered ebooks to the same status as paper books.
It made it very easy to loan a book, and prevented you from reading it or loaning it again to another person till the first person returned it. It was a beautiful thing. It would even handle gifting, by severing all of the original owner's rights to reclaim the copy.
Then the publishers stepped in and said, No Way. Lend it once in your entire life, and only for 14 days.
Here they were handed a way to make ebooks almost exactly like paper, and someone else was willing to do the accounting all for free, and they turned it down.
Its a total mind fuck that they would do that, knowing full well that doing so would just encourage DRM removal. I would think authors would be the first to stand up and object.
I don't find anything wrong with the lend program. I realize Slashdot has a certain "information should be free" ethos, but it doesn't make much sense to build in the ability to give unlimited copies to everyone and think that it won't undermine the business.
You have managed to TOTALLY miss the point here.
B&N and Amazon have developed a mechanism which would support lending books, but preventing the lender from reading it while it was on load. They have a mechanize to make an e-book exactly line a printed book.
The ebook is locked on the lender's kindle/nook for the duration of the lend.
So there is no "unlimited copies" nonsense.
Its just like a printed book. You lend it, you don't have it. Wait till you get it back and lend it again. Or give it away. Your book, your choice.
You are exactly right. Its almost insulting that the offer it, probably doing so only to deflect regulator attention for violating consumer's rights.
Its the same deal offered by the publishers to Barnes & Noble for Nook users. (Not Amazon's doing, in other words).
They have found a way to end run the First Sale Doctrine, by controlling right after the purchase. Non infringing resale is essentially impossible, and even loans or gifts are not possible.
The problem is no consumer group exists which can fight all the way to the Supreme Court, which is probably what it will take.
An like so much of procrastination, it will probably not be necessary to read it later because much better articles will come along, or the theory will be completely debunked, or its fleeting (and perceived) importance will vanish.
Procrastination is a learned workload management technique. People learn that the demands placed upon them by parents, society, or physical environment, can often be avoided just by waiting it out.
Every day you put off picking up your toys as a child is one more day you don't have to. Every day you avoid re-thatching the roof of your grass shack is another day to hunt and gather.
Many, if not most, "penalties" are simply nulled out with the passage of time. So rather than being irrational, this is a perfectly normal rational, learned workload management technique.
The brilliance of an intelligent species is the avoidance of unnecessary waste of energy and time on problems that solve themselves, while focusing on goals that really matter, and which will not solve themselves.
Actual penalties endured due to procrastination are failures of risk management skills, not some imaginary "irrational relationship to time".
I agree with parent. If the other hand is fine, our brains are capable of adjustment. It might take a while (I assume he is an adult) but should not be that hard, just require lots of practice and patience.
The "While" it will take is likely to be longer than the "while" it takes him to heal. This is not an easy transition, and it just adds to the frustration by almost, but not quite, being able to deliver up to one's own standard.
Perhaps a vacation would be a better choice than inducing a frustration built upon frustration.
Look at your film. Now look at the movie. Now back to your film.
How big is your film. Now how big is the movie. The movie is very big. Your film is very small.
Look at your film. How bad is the image quality. Now look at the movie. Its in HD. Can your film be HD?. Now look back at the movie. Don't you wish it was your film?
Look at your audience. All seven of them. Now look at the movie's audience. Don't you wish the movie was your movie?
They all want the movie. All the millions of them. All at the same time. All in HD. Nobody wants you film. Even your porn film. They all want the movie. They all want it now.
Look at the take down notice for your film. Now look back at the movie. Its in HD. Everyone watches it. 24/7. They pay to watch it. The net breaks. Nobody watches your film, because its taken down and the net is broken.
...my ISP starts punishing me for using the Internet to do legal things that the Internet was designed for?
The Net wasn't designed for netflicks. You can make the case that it's just data, but it is huge amounts of data that users want delivered without any pauses, exactly where they want it, at the highest quality.
All this on a network designed for email and websurfung and the occasional music or short video download.
The point of the article is that the net is woefully inadequate for the task.
Your isp can let you bring down the shared resource for everyone or they can impose some restrictions.
Al Franken was late because Minnesota voters could not make up their mind.
If the population is so ambivalent about a result, any election in a dead heat one month after, could just as well be decided on a coin toss.
The longer it takes the more chance for skullduggery and ballots found in the trunk of cars to emerge.
Re:metaprogramming FTW!
on
Land of Lisp
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Perhaps it speaks to the fact that there are so few real world programming tasks that require cool but obtuse capabilities that take longer to master than the much simpler code in other languages?
Umm...isn't the point of demographic weighting to factor in "unweighted" demographics like this?
You would think they would be allowing for it. But given the admission that they might fail to do so you have to pretty much assume its just a "hail Mary" pronouncement, that reflects more on the polling industry than anything else.
The day when cell phone ownership was significant is long past.
When the majority of 16 year olds and a large percentage of 12 year olds have cells, not to mention both parents, and the grand parents, the days where this mattered are long past.
Certainly there is no longer any basis to assert that cell ownership is skewed along political lines.
Nor is there for land line ownership.
In fact you could make the case that these polls are more likely to be weighted in favor of the Democrats by relying on land lines. If anything, land lines are more prevalent in poor, under educated households (historically a Democratic strong hold), while more affluent better educated have move totally to cells (even for the kids) and use land-lines for answering machines (if at all). The richer you get, the less likely you are to answer a land line.
But virtually everyone has caller id these days, and we all have learned not to answer that robo-dialed 8xx number. I'm amazed they can actually call enough people to create a valid poll anymore.
The problem with write-ins is that in some states, Georgia for example, a write-in candidate gets your ballot thrown out since the Diebold machine can't handle those. I confirmed this with the Secretary of State's office.
Your ballot gets "thrown out" of the machine, and gets hand count. That's the good news.
All people stand to lose 100% of what they own should government fail entirely, but government did not give them their income or even allow them to earn it.
People earned income quite well in the absence of government, in the north american west, alaska, australia, even siberia etc. The kept their income or traded it as they saw fit with friends and neighbors or mere acquaintances. Government did nothing to help this. It existed prior to government.
You sir are a hopeless statist. Its a failed philosophy, and the route to slavery.
Slashdot Mirror
Your statement that ebooks are licensed not owned is not borne out by the terms of sale.
Go check out the book seller web sites.
There is no file transfer involved.
Its a book keeping entry at Amazon. That's all.
You loan a book.
Amazon removes if from your kindle.
Amazon remembers you owned it in a computer file.
Amazon makes an entry in your friend's account saying they can download and read the book.
When they tell their kindle to download, they get a copy that works for 14 days.
After 14 days, their copy stops working.
You may then download your copy again.
Its all a book keeping exercise. Doesn't matter if actual transfer fails. Nothing is transfered between users.
Both Amazon and B&N maintain a virtual book shelf for your purchases. As long as they are in business, you can re-download the books you purchased, to stock the replacement Nook/Kindle after dropping the original in the lake or whatever.
Further, you can backup your own purchase at any time. And you can restore it to any device that support the decryption method.
Both B&N and Amazon use the same technique. Encrypt the book with your name and Credit card number. Things you would not be willing to give to strangers. You can always copy your ebooks to your friend's reader, open the book and answer the questions (name and card number) then hand the reader back. It needs to be done exactly once, and the decryption key is saved (not the actual credit card number).
So ebooks are less fragile than paper.
Why is lending or gifting what is supposedly yours a bizarre new right?
As the Economist rightly notes, this won't stand. Anti-features (including DRM) only need to be removed once. Argue however much you like about the rights of the author.
The thing is, the system set up by Barnes and Noble and copied by Amazon rendered ebooks to the same status as paper books.
It made it very easy to loan a book, and prevented you from reading it or loaning it again to another person till the first person returned it. It was a beautiful thing. It would even handle gifting, by severing all of the original owner's rights to reclaim the copy.
Then the publishers stepped in and said, No Way. Lend it once in your entire life, and only for 14 days.
Here they were handed a way to make ebooks almost exactly like paper, and someone else was willing to do the accounting all for free, and they turned it down.
Its a total mind fuck that they would do that, knowing full well that doing so would just encourage DRM removal. I would think authors would be the first to stand up and object.
I'm really starting to believe that we could completely do away with copyrights and things would change very little.
This issue has nothing to do with copyright. The discussion is not about violating anyone's copyright, or bilking the authors out of their due.
Its not about unfettered reproduction, or duplication of the author's work.
Its about loaning the book you bought to a friend for as long as you want, and when it is returned, loaning it to another friend.
That is not a violation of anyone's copyright.
This is not a copyright issue.
I don't find anything wrong with the lend program. I realize Slashdot has a certain "information should be free" ethos, but it doesn't make much sense to build in the ability to give unlimited copies to everyone and think that it won't undermine the business.
You have managed to TOTALLY miss the point here.
B&N and Amazon have developed a mechanism which would support lending books, but preventing the lender from reading it while it was on load. They have a mechanize to make an e-book exactly line a printed book.
The ebook is locked on the lender's kindle/nook for the duration of the lend.
So there is no "unlimited copies" nonsense.
Its just like a printed book. You lend it, you don't have it. Wait till you get it back and lend it again. Or give it away. Your book, your choice.
See the difference?
You are exactly right. Its almost insulting that the offer it, probably doing so only to deflect regulator attention for violating consumer's rights.
Its the same deal offered by the publishers to Barnes & Noble for Nook users. (Not Amazon's doing, in other words).
They have found a way to end run the First Sale Doctrine, by controlling right after the purchase. Non infringing resale is essentially impossible, and even loans or gifts are not possible.
The problem is no consumer group exists which can fight all the way to the Supreme Court, which is probably what it will take.
So you didn't read the article or watch the video either.....
Think of it like sitting on a skateboard and pushing off from a moving wall behind you with your arm.
I'm sorry, but my Slash dot number is too low to understand this skateboard analogy thing...
Could you rephrase that as a Car Analogy please?
K, thanks, bye.
An like so much of procrastination, it will probably not be necessary to read it later because much better articles will come along, or the theory will be completely debunked, or its fleeting (and perceived) importance will vanish.
Procrastination is a learned workload management technique. People learn that the demands placed upon them by parents, society, or physical environment, can often be avoided just by waiting it out.
Every day you put off picking up your toys as a child is one more day you don't have to. Every day you avoid re-thatching the roof of your grass shack is another day to hunt and gather.
Many, if not most, "penalties" are simply nulled out with the passage of time. So rather than being irrational, this is a perfectly normal rational, learned workload management technique.
The brilliance of an intelligent species is the avoidance of unnecessary waste of energy and time on problems that solve themselves, while focusing on goals that really matter, and which will not solve themselves.
Actual penalties endured due to procrastination are failures of risk management skills, not some imaginary "irrational relationship to time".
I agree with parent. If the other hand is fine, our brains are capable of adjustment. It might take a while (I assume he is an adult) but should not be that hard, just require lots of practice and patience.
The "While" it will take is likely to be longer than the "while" it takes him to heal. This is not an easy transition, and it just adds to the frustration by almost, but not quite, being able to deliver up to one's own standard.
Perhaps a vacation would be a better choice than inducing a frustration built upon frustration.
Swoosh.
Look at your film. Now look at the movie. Now back to your film.
How big is your film. Now how big is the movie. The movie is very big. Your film is very small.
Look at your film. How bad is the image quality. Now look at the movie. Its in HD. Can your film be HD?. Now look back at the movie. Don't you wish it was your film?
Look at your audience. All seven of them. Now look at the movie's audience. Don't you wish the movie was your movie?
They all want the movie. All the millions of them. All at the same time. All in HD. Nobody wants you film. Even your porn film. They all want the movie. They all want it now.
Look at the take down notice for your film. Now look back at the movie. Its in HD. Everyone watches it. 24/7. They pay to watch it. The net breaks. Nobody watches your film, because its taken down and the net is broken.
Swoosh.
Wait, did you just equate HD moves on demand with YouTube?
...my ISP starts punishing me for using the Internet to do legal things that the Internet was designed for?
The Net wasn't designed for netflicks.
You can make the case that it's just data, but it is huge amounts of data that users want delivered without any pauses, exactly where they want it, at the highest quality.
All this on a network designed for email and websurfung and the occasional music or short video download.
The point of the article is that the net is woefully inadequate for the task.
Your isp can let you bring down the shared resource for everyone or they can impose some restrictions.
Al Franken was late because Minnesota voters could not make up their mind.
If the population is so ambivalent about a result, any election in a dead heat one month after, could just as well be decided on a coin toss.
The longer it takes the more chance for skullduggery and ballots found in the trunk of cars to emerge.
Perhaps it speaks to the fact that there are so few real world programming tasks that require cool but obtuse capabilities that take longer to master than the much simpler code in other languages?
To be a write in candidate, you merely need to have a pledged and registered slate of electors in the states in which you are running.
Umm...isn't the point of demographic weighting to factor in "unweighted" demographics like this?
You would think they would be allowing for it. But given the admission that they might fail to do so you have to pretty much assume its just a "hail Mary" pronouncement, that reflects more on the polling industry than anything else.
The day when cell phone ownership was significant is long past.
When the majority of 16 year olds and a large percentage of 12 year olds have cells, not to mention both parents, and the grand parents, the days where this mattered are long past.
Certainly there is no longer any basis to assert that cell ownership is skewed along political lines.
Nor is there for land line ownership.
In fact you could make the case that these polls are more likely to be weighted in favor of the Democrats by relying on land lines. If anything, land lines are more prevalent in poor, under educated households (historically a Democratic strong hold), while more affluent better educated have move totally to cells (even for the kids) and use land-lines for answering machines (if at all). The richer you get, the less likely you are to answer a land line.
But virtually everyone has caller id these days, and we all have learned not to answer that robo-dialed 8xx number. I'm amazed they can actually call enough people to create a valid poll anymore.
The problem with write-ins is that in some states, Georgia for example, a write-in candidate gets your ballot thrown out since the Diebold machine can't handle those. I confirmed this with the Secretary of State's office.
Your ballot gets "thrown out" of the machine, and gets hand count. That's the good news.
What's the downside of that?
Too old to pay much attention to kiddies I guess.
He would barter a hammer head from a smith, whittle a handle, build a dog house for the smith's dog in return, and they would share a pint of beer.
Worst case, he would make a whittle a wooden hammer.
Do you seriously think government was around when mankind made the first hammer from rocks and sticks and animal hide thongs?
My god man have you never relied on yourself for anything?
The person creates his own income.
All people stand to lose 100% of what they own should government fail entirely, but government did not give them their income or even allow them to earn it.
People earned income quite well in the absence of government, in the north american west, alaska, australia, even siberia etc. The kept their income or traded it as they saw fit with friends and neighbors or mere acquaintances. Government did nothing to help this. It existed prior to government.
You sir are a hopeless statist. Its a failed philosophy, and the route to slavery.
You air are delusional.
Society created government, not the other way around.
Government is but a tool.
The Carpenter is not the slave to the hammer.