Ever touched the live part of a bug zapper? Hint: It won't kill you. The power of the laser isn't (or at least, doesn't need to be) strong enough to harm a human or larger animal.
The US government isn't going to arrest you for bellyaching againt them, putting you and your family into labor camps so an offshore company can get soccer balls and shoes cheap, then when you can't work, kill you and then sell you (and your family's) organs on the black market for the highest bidder.
To be fair, the odds of the Chinese government doing this to me are also vanishingly small; I'm pretty sure this was the GP's point as well, and the reason he was modded funny, not insightful.
I like that you go on to repeat your error and pretend that you're right. I'd mod you up +1 Informative if I had the points (and was posting AC) for making it clear that you really don't get statistics. Plus, I admire the obstinance. There's something vaguely can-do-American about it.
You might be the worst/. poster I've seen in a while.
If $9.99 is too expensive isn't $15 even more expensive? That's an increase of 150%.
Obvious AND trivial math error. It's a 50% increase.
The Gizmoto article says this though: "Update: It's known Amazon loses money offering some bestsellers at $9.99".
Links are for chumps.
Now I don't know how many tymes I've heard, er read, it but a number of people have said low cost e-books drive sales for printed books. If so then the question that should be asked is if the increase in sales of printed books offsets the loss from e-books.
Pointlessly pointing out the pointlessly obvious.
Wait, who am I kidding? You must be CowboyNeal's second account.
It's not reasonable because it places an enormous burden on the rights holder to police the use of his creation, and every time something slips by him, you're effectively saying that it was legal.
This is how copyright law works period, regardless of the Google settlement.
Slashdot Mirror
Ever touched the live part of a bug zapper? Hint: It won't kill you. The power of the laser isn't (or at least, doesn't need to be) strong enough to harm a human or larger animal.
I live on the SECOND floor, thank you very much.
But I am paranoid.
I personally blame all the morans of the world.
Yes slashdot, that was intentional.
They're probably just carrion feeders.
The US government isn't going to arrest you for bellyaching againt them, putting you and your family into labor camps so an offshore company can get soccer balls and shoes cheap, then when you can't work, kill you and then sell you (and your family's) organs on the black market for the highest bidder.
To be fair, the odds of the Chinese government doing this to me are also vanishingly small; I'm pretty sure this was the GP's point as well, and the reason he was modded funny, not insightful.
Consistent histories is wrong. See also the Bell Inequality.
Xerox patented it, and refused to implement it. We're boned.
I just book it when they hand me the camera. It's not robbery, it's gift-receiving.
I don't know about you, but my fax machine always objects when I mention that.
I pawned my Smith Corona years ago.
And that the USPTO is happy to ignore alongside them. Proud, even.
Sexlexia actually.
He's pretty much credibly incompetent at it, in fact.
That's what this was...
Only if you're looking forward to your stay in a secret military prison.
But who's going to scan the brain waves of the guy scanning the brain waves of the guy scanning my junk?
I like that you go on to repeat your error and pretend that you're right. I'd mod you up +1 Informative if I had the points (and was posting AC) for making it clear that you really don't get statistics. Plus, I admire the obstinance. There's something vaguely can-do-American about it.
What? Are you on drugs?
If I started talking about cyulis, would you not know it was out of place, despite not know what it is?
You might be the worst /. poster I've seen in a while.
If $9.99 is too expensive isn't $15 even more expensive? That's an increase of 150%.
Obvious AND trivial math error. It's a 50% increase.
The Gizmoto article says this though: "Update: It's known Amazon loses money offering some bestsellers at $9.99".
Links are for chumps.
Now I don't know how many tymes I've heard, er read, it but a number of people have said low cost e-books drive sales for printed books. If so then the question that should be asked is if the increase in sales of printed books offsets the loss from e-books.
Pointlessly pointing out the pointlessly obvious.
Wait, who am I kidding? You must be CowboyNeal's second account.
You've confused self-XOR with nuking from orbit I see. Understandable.
I thought that place was abandoned.
Welcome to LA County. Leave before your soul evaporates.
I find that getting only half the conversation is almost always more entertaining. Less is more.
Only if they police the use of their creation, and every time something slips by them no damages are paid.
It's not reasonable because it places an enormous burden on the rights holder to police the use of his creation, and every time something slips by him, you're effectively saying that it was legal.
This is how copyright law works period, regardless of the Google settlement.