I don't understand why people would buy this at ~$400. May as well just go and get a low end tablet pc, which you could use for a multitude of other uses.
I'm truly sick of intelligent people making this blunder. A tablet PC doesn't do the same thing. They're not the same device. A tablet PC has a short battery life and is not designed for wear-and-tear the way an ebook device is. On the other hand, (good) ebook devices use eink displays that are at a glance indistinguishable from real paper. They are designed to be lightweight and durable. They are specialized devices.
Threw together a little slideshow on Ubuntu and 7.10's features for my co-workers; for Linux newbies; for Slashdotters who can't be bothered to RTFA: http://docs.google.com/Presentation?id=dgkpmsdn_60d94jqg Nothing new here; just a compacted version of what's available. Enjoy!
His answer to, "Why is fantasy so hot?" is basically, "Because with fantasy, we don't have to be original."
Listen, this is about a much larger "problem" that's been slowly cropping up recently within in geek fiction: readers (and gamers) believe they're willing to try something new, but they really aren't. So, when you pick up a hundred fantasy novels off the shelf in your local bookstore*, you'll find that most of them have similar themes ("We have to save the world!"), have the exact same types of settings (similar to medieval Europe), have the exact same types of action (swordfights with wizards) and have the exact same type of fantasy beasts (dragons, zombies, dragonzombies, zombodragonoids). Likewise for fantasy games.
Why is fantasy so limited? It should really only be limited by the author's/ designer's imagination. But too often, designers and authors (rightfully) believe that their audiences just want more of the same. That they don't want a completely new type of world, a completely different definition of "magic," a completely different set of creatures unique to the world.
We end up with more of the same becuase that's what sells. And since it sells, producers/ publishers are unwilling to take risks.
The sad truth is, the self-important fantasy crowd lives in an adolescent power-fantasy. They know how they like their superheroes, and they know how they like their fantasy. Sci-fi is too challenging to them becuase from one universe to the next, the rules are completely different. (This could be the case for fantasy too, but too often we're just force-fed more of the same).
What Mr. Jacobs' answer should have been was, "Because it's easier to force-feed our users more of the same."
*(a pre-Amazon phenomenon)
It's the diet craze in video game format. I have a feeling that if you need to pay someone to teach you how to play video games, you probably have neither the patience nor the skill required to be good at video games.
As long as there's people buyin', though, there'll be people sellin'.
I seriously mean it, I feel so bad for Jack. He's like a McCarthy... he's dedicated his life to this thing that had some followers once, but is now disappearing. And since that's how he defined himself, he's just clinging to it. He's really just the object of ridicule, and he's going to end up like McCarthy: face-down, drunk in a gutter. If I prayed, my prayers would go out to him.
There's a pretty obvious problem with what you're saying.
So you're willing to give up private telephone conversations when there is no indication that doing so has aided the U.S. in its war on terror. Would you be willing to give up private email messages? Private snail mail? International travel? Domestic travel? Imported goods?
If there is nothing you wouldn't give up to stay alive, what's the point of living? "Sure, I'll stay in this windowless, dirty basement cell with only dirty water and tepid broth to sustain me... if it means I can live without fear of terror!"
But that's obviously a slipperly slope argument for me to make, and you're smarter than that. So you'll likely say, "Well, there are limits to what I'd give up." Great. Those need to be clearly defined. And once those are clearly defined, they need to be written into law. Oh, wait! Guess what! They already are law. People have already decided as a democracy not to give up certain liberties, no matter what.
That's why people are so upset about this. That's why black-and-white with-us-or-against-us is such an unhealthy approach to solving this problem.
It's not just life that people want. It's a quality of life. We've agreed on what that means for Americans, and we shouldn't give it up, not without a fight.
Defending against enemies foreign and domestic? Necessary, you're absolutely correct. On this point, I couldn't agree with you more.
You have a great argument; you're using a bit of a slippery slope. You're saying, "We don't wiretap illegally, therefore we get nuked to hell." It's not quite like that, and you're doing a bit of conclusion-jumping.
How about this? Let's say a house in your neighborhood is ransached. Someone broke in, stole some valuables and tore the place apart. Worse, police say that they think your house is next. The neighborhood watch has a meeting and decides they're going to post an armed guard on your porch at all hours of the day. They also give that armed guard complete authority to enter your home at the first hint of a disturbance. The guard is instructed to listen to all of your telephone calls to make sure he catches potential threats that you may have missed. In general, you give up a bit of your freedom for safety.
But look at what happened: you weren't the one who decided to have it this way, the neighborhood was. And the guard is going just a bit too far. It'd be nice to have someone watching your home, making sure there were no intruders, but there are other means; that someone doesn't have to violate your privacy to protect you.
I guess what I'm saying is, defending against enemies foreign and domestic is not only an admirable goal; it is also a necessary one. But we defend against those enemies to protect a way of life, and if in so doing we go against that very way of life, we have not won at all. There are other means to protect America from terrorists, and Americans should not yet be ready to allow Big Brother to listen in on their phone calls from Grandma.
A reality of abolutes and black-and-white would be convenient for ethicists, philosophers and just about anyone else who wants to know the difference between right and wrong. You must know that it doesn't work that way.
Invoking terrorism as an excuse for abusing civil liberties? Please. We may as well invoke the bogey-man as a reason to pay taxes or Santa Claus as a reason to be a moral person.
Let's all put our shirts back on, set the can of Old Milwaukee down and take a deep breath. Civil liberties are at the core of a strong democracy, and as they are eroded, so will be a democracy's strength.
I'll admit that the analogy is a stretch. Not being a multinational corporation worth many many millions of dollars, I was having a hard time finding a similarity. Coporations should be trustworthy to their customers; husbands should be trustworthy to their wives...? It's a stretch, I know.
Slashdot Mirror
P.S. Where can you find a tablet PC for $400?
Moreover, there's the even more aesthetically-pleasing, less DRM-ridden Bookeen Cybook for $350. Does it run Linux? Yes.
Threw together a little slideshow on Ubuntu and 7.10's features for my co-workers; for Linux newbies; for Slashdotters who can't be bothered to RTFA: http://docs.google.com/Presentation?id=dgkpmsdn_60d94jqg Nothing new here; just a compacted version of what's available. Enjoy!
His answer to, "Why is fantasy so hot?" is basically, "Because with fantasy, we don't have to be original." Listen, this is about a much larger "problem" that's been slowly cropping up recently within in geek fiction: readers (and gamers) believe they're willing to try something new, but they really aren't. So, when you pick up a hundred fantasy novels off the shelf in your local bookstore*, you'll find that most of them have similar themes ("We have to save the world!"), have the exact same types of settings (similar to medieval Europe), have the exact same types of action (swordfights with wizards) and have the exact same type of fantasy beasts (dragons, zombies, dragonzombies, zombodragonoids). Likewise for fantasy games. Why is fantasy so limited? It should really only be limited by the author's/ designer's imagination. But too often, designers and authors (rightfully) believe that their audiences just want more of the same. That they don't want a completely new type of world, a completely different definition of "magic," a completely different set of creatures unique to the world. We end up with more of the same becuase that's what sells. And since it sells, producers/ publishers are unwilling to take risks. The sad truth is, the self-important fantasy crowd lives in an adolescent power-fantasy. They know how they like their superheroes, and they know how they like their fantasy. Sci-fi is too challenging to them becuase from one universe to the next, the rules are completely different. (This could be the case for fantasy too, but too often we're just force-fed more of the same). What Mr. Jacobs' answer should have been was, "Because it's easier to force-feed our users more of the same." *(a pre-Amazon phenomenon)
It's the diet craze in video game format. I have a feeling that if you need to pay someone to teach you how to play video games, you probably have neither the patience nor the skill required to be good at video games. As long as there's people buyin', though, there'll be people sellin'.
I hear he does mostly pro-boner work.
I seriously mean it, I feel so bad for Jack. He's like a McCarthy... he's dedicated his life to this thing that had some followers once, but is now disappearing. And since that's how he defined himself, he's just clinging to it. He's really just the object of ridicule, and he's going to end up like McCarthy: face-down, drunk in a gutter. If I prayed, my prayers would go out to him.
Nom, you're a smart person, you use logic well.
There's a pretty obvious problem with what you're saying.
So you're willing to give up private telephone conversations when there is no indication that doing so has aided the U.S. in its war on terror. Would you be willing to give up private email messages? Private snail mail? International travel? Domestic travel? Imported goods?
If there is nothing you wouldn't give up to stay alive, what's the point of living? "Sure, I'll stay in this windowless, dirty basement cell with only dirty water and tepid broth to sustain me... if it means I can live without fear of terror!"
But that's obviously a slipperly slope argument for me to make, and you're smarter than that. So you'll likely say, "Well, there are limits to what I'd give up." Great. Those need to be clearly defined. And once those are clearly defined, they need to be written into law. Oh, wait! Guess what! They already are law. People have already decided as a democracy not to give up certain liberties, no matter what.
That's why people are so upset about this. That's why black-and-white with-us-or-against-us is such an unhealthy approach to solving this problem.
It's not just life that people want. It's a quality of life. We've agreed on what that means for Americans, and we shouldn't give it up, not without a fight.
Defending against enemies foreign and domestic? Necessary, you're absolutely correct. On this point, I couldn't agree with you more.
You have a great argument; you're using a bit of a slippery slope. You're saying, "We don't wiretap illegally, therefore we get nuked to hell." It's not quite like that, and you're doing a bit of conclusion-jumping.
How about this? Let's say a house in your neighborhood is ransached. Someone broke in, stole some valuables and tore the place apart. Worse, police say that they think your house is next. The neighborhood watch has a meeting and decides they're going to post an armed guard on your porch at all hours of the day. They also give that armed guard complete authority to enter your home at the first hint of a disturbance. The guard is instructed to listen to all of your telephone calls to make sure he catches potential threats that you may have missed. In general, you give up a bit of your freedom for safety.
But look at what happened: you weren't the one who decided to have it this way, the neighborhood was. And the guard is going just a bit too far. It'd be nice to have someone watching your home, making sure there were no intruders, but there are other means; that someone doesn't have to violate your privacy to protect you.
I guess what I'm saying is, defending against enemies foreign and domestic is not only an admirable goal; it is also a necessary one. But we defend against those enemies to protect a way of life, and if in so doing we go against that very way of life, we have not won at all. There are other means to protect America from terrorists, and Americans should not yet be ready to allow Big Brother to listen in on their phone calls from Grandma.
A reality of abolutes and black-and-white would be convenient for ethicists, philosophers and just about anyone else who wants to know the difference between right and wrong. You must know that it doesn't work that way. Invoking terrorism as an excuse for abusing civil liberties? Please. We may as well invoke the bogey-man as a reason to pay taxes or Santa Claus as a reason to be a moral person. Let's all put our shirts back on, set the can of Old Milwaukee down and take a deep breath. Civil liberties are at the core of a strong democracy, and as they are eroded, so will be a democracy's strength.
I'll admit that the analogy is a stretch. Not being a multinational corporation worth many many millions of dollars, I was having a hard time finding a similarity. Coporations should be trustworthy to their customers; husbands should be trustworthy to their wives...? It's a stretch, I know.
If I had as much money as Sony, my wife would have all the more reason for tossing me out of the house and finding a decent attorney.
If I'd waited this long to apologize to my wife for doing something obviously wrong, I'd be sleeping on the sidewalk.