IIRC, the rule is that the Kindle book can't be more expensive than the dead-tree version (or has to be below X% of the paper thing), rather than an absolute price ceiling.
That's only under the new (optional) program which gets you 70% royalties rather than 30%. If you want to stick with the old program and get 30% royalties, then you can set the price however you like.
Amazon's catalog was DRM free for a year before Apple's. Apple may have had some DRM free tracks, but their major label catalog's weren't.
Not true. EMI's catalog was DRM-free on iTunes before the Amazon store launched. But the other labels chose not to participate and instead go to Amazon as a retaliation tactic against Apple.
Anyway, the bottom line is that the iTunes store was the first online store anywhere to sell DRM-free tracks from major labels. And if it wasn't for Apple making that move, you never would have got it from Amazon.
Honestly, they would literally go out and kill puppies, kittens and baby seals all day long if it would allow them to control everything you install.
The funny thing about this is that Microsoft does kill puppies, kittens and baby seals all day long, but they still aren't able to do this. It's so senseless, but at least Ballmer gets some interesting lunch snacks.
I would think Amazon dropping DRM first and selling MP3s at a very competitive price had a lot more to do with dropping that
You do realize that Amazon never had DRM on music in the first place, so it didn't "drop" it, don't you? You do realize that the only reason that Amazon was allowed to sell DRM-free music in the first place was only because of an act of revenge from the record labels against Apple, don't you? You also must realize that Apple started selling DRM-free tracks before Amazon even started to sell downloadable music, don't you?
I mean really, how can you not be aware of these things, yet be posting on slashdot about this topic?
And I honestly don't mean this as a troll, but anyone who buys an Apple product *NOT* expecting it to be locked down tighter than Ann Coulter's vagina deserves to be disappointed.
I don't really understand where you're coming from. Ann Coulter's vagina isn't locked down. She's a notorious meth whore who looks like Skeletor. She'll give it up to anybody willing to pay a nickel.
No shit, they wouldn't describe themselves as narrow extremists, but that is exactly what their theology advocates. When you espouse a belief that is narrow and extreme, then you don't get to say "no fair" when people point that out.
There is no "antireligious" definition of fundamentalism. It is what it is. Rather, you are trying to invent a new definition of fundamentalism, that somehow doesn't involve a strict interpretation of the Bible, even though that's exactly what fundamentalism is all about.
The words have all gotten vague and warped over time. Fundamentalist, conservative, liberal, fascist, and so forth, have all lost their original meanings
But it hasn't. "Fundamentalism" is a term that hasn't been around very long, and it used today almost exactly the same way it was when it was coined. If it's become so warped, then why don't you tell me what the "true" definition is?
It's only over time that the term has come to be seen as describing a narrow extremist viewpoint.
No. Fundamentalism meant a narrow extremist viewpoint from the very beginning. That's the very essence of fundamentalism - narrowly clinging to your interpretation of the Bible, and rejecting all others.
As has been discussed before, that's one definition (capital F fundamentalism).
No, it's not. Can you show me any dictionary that defines fundamentalism as "Let's strip off all of the ritual, tradition, cruft, and bloat that's crept into Christianity over the past 2000 years, and get back to what was preached and practiced back in the First Century"? I didn't think so. That's your own interpretation, and is significantly off the mark, as fundamentalism (being a recent re-interpretration of Christianity) adds its own cruft and bloat.
Christian Fundamentalism is basically "Let's strip off all of the ritual, tradition, cruft, and bloat that's crept into Christianity over the past 2000 years, and get back to what was preached and practiced back in the First Century".
No. It's really not. Where did you get that idea from?
Slashdot Mirror
Simpler: "Don't break anything unless someone tells you to."
But what if you have to break something to protect a human?
IIRC, the rule is that the Kindle book can't be more expensive than the dead-tree version (or has to be below X% of the paper thing), rather than an absolute price ceiling.
That's only under the new (optional) program which gets you 70% royalties rather than 30%. If you want to stick with the old program and get 30% royalties, then you can set the price however you like.
This consumer toy horseshit is a way to funnel money from you to them.
Yet somehow printed books aren't a way to funnel money from you? Have you seen the prices of books lately?
No one made a big fuss when that was announced.
They did, actually. Slashdot was full of comments about how "Revolution" was a much better name.
Hey guys! Let's make an iPhone, but bigger, and a gajillion times more expensive!
Say what? The iPad is about the same price as an iPhone, the difference is that you don't pay for it on a contract.
I want to be *told* when an email shows up, or an IM arrives, or someone updates their facebook status.
Wait, you actually care enough about somebody's facebook status that you want to be notified when it changes? What kind of sick freak are you?
This is just an attempt by apple to make this appealing.
But Apple didn't write this article, it's by "recombu.com" - a site that nobody has ever heard of and has nothing to do with Apple.
$420 is the absolute top end of netbook prices,
Except that it isn't, not for a long shot. $420 is pretty typical, not high-end.
RTD -did you mean RDF-? maybe you are also in some kind of RDF yourself, of another kind.
RetarDation Factor?
Or do you seriously think you have an example of a more overhyped product since the Segway?
Sarah Palin?
Amazon's catalog was DRM free for a year before Apple's. Apple may have had some DRM free tracks, but their major label catalog's weren't.
Not true. EMI's catalog was DRM-free on iTunes before the Amazon store launched. But the other labels chose not to participate and instead go to Amazon as a retaliation tactic against Apple.
Anyway, the bottom line is that the iTunes store was the first online store anywhere to sell DRM-free tracks from major labels. And if it wasn't for Apple making that move, you never would have got it from Amazon.
This whole "just don't buy it" thing is getting ridiculous.
Hmmm. So, instead of exercising their free will, and choosing not to buy the product, people should be forced to buy it?
Honestly, they would literally go out and kill puppies, kittens and baby seals all day long if it would allow them to control everything you install.
The funny thing about this is that Microsoft does kill puppies, kittens and baby seals all day long, but they still aren't able to do this. It's so senseless, but at least Ballmer gets some interesting lunch snacks.
I would think Amazon dropping DRM first and selling MP3s at a very competitive price had a lot more to do with dropping that
You do realize that Amazon never had DRM on music in the first place, so it didn't "drop" it, don't you? You do realize that the only reason that Amazon was allowed to sell DRM-free music in the first place was only because of an act of revenge from the record labels against Apple, don't you? You also must realize that Apple started selling DRM-free tracks before Amazon even started to sell downloadable music, don't you?
I mean really, how can you not be aware of these things, yet be posting on slashdot about this topic?
And I honestly don't mean this as a troll, but anyone who buys an Apple product *NOT* expecting it to be locked down tighter than Ann Coulter's vagina deserves to be disappointed.
I don't really understand where you're coming from. Ann Coulter's vagina isn't locked down. She's a notorious meth whore who looks like Skeletor. She'll give it up to anybody willing to pay a nickel.
The power of taxation is already granted the the Federal government.
No shit, they wouldn't describe themselves as narrow extremists, but that is exactly what their theology advocates. When you espouse a belief that is narrow and extreme, then you don't get to say "no fair" when people point that out.
There is no "antireligious" definition of fundamentalism. It is what it is. Rather, you are trying to invent a new definition of fundamentalism, that somehow doesn't involve a strict interpretation of the Bible, even though that's exactly what fundamentalism is all about.
The words have all gotten vague and warped over time. Fundamentalist, conservative, liberal, fascist, and so forth, have all lost their original meanings
But it hasn't. "Fundamentalism" is a term that hasn't been around very long, and it used today almost exactly the same way it was when it was coined. If it's become so warped, then why don't you tell me what the "true" definition is?
It's only over time that the term has come to be seen as describing a narrow extremist viewpoint.
No. Fundamentalism meant a narrow extremist viewpoint from the very beginning. That's the very essence of fundamentalism - narrowly clinging to your interpretation of the Bible, and rejecting all others.
Many, many people believe that and can provide logical, scholarly reasons for that.
They, can? So, why haven't any of them publicly written these logical reasons before?
As has been discussed before, that's one definition (capital F fundamentalism).
No, it's not. Can you show me any dictionary that defines fundamentalism as "Let's strip off all of the ritual, tradition, cruft, and bloat that's crept into Christianity over the past 2000 years, and get back to what was preached and practiced back in the First Century"? I didn't think so. That's your own interpretation, and is significantly off the mark, as fundamentalism (being a recent re-interpretration of Christianity) adds its own cruft and bloat.
requires a member of the appropriate sex (and species!)
Damn slashdot nerds, always nit-picking.
It falls under regulating trade, IMO.
That doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
It says "powers" - not just random stuff. How is funding educational research a "power"?
Christian Fundamentalism is basically "Let's strip off all of the ritual, tradition, cruft, and bloat that's crept into Christianity over the past 2000 years, and get back to what was preached and practiced back in the First Century".
No. It's really not. Where did you get that idea from?