Good for them. And since the stadium is full nobody's buying any longer their need for a blackout. Good for the fans.

You're thinking of music as something that mostly young people spend money on. That's not so true any more. Old folks have a lot more disposable income and are willing to spend money on the physical formats they're most familiar with. The largest group of CD purchasers are the 50+ crowd, and while they lag in digital downloads, even there, they're beating out the previously dominant 13-17 demographic.

See this article. Yeah, Buzzfeed, I know.

On my Note Pro:

1) I had to have the (orange) Amazon "apps" Appstore app.
2) From within that app, I had to download and install the Amazon App. The one that has the blue shopping cart. Couldn't use the Amazon App available in Google Play, it seemingly installed the video app, but in the end, none of the videos were available on my device.
3) From within the Amazon App, I had to download and install the Amazon Instant Video Player App.

Got it? The Instant Video Player App inside the Amazon App inside the Appstore app. Dead simple.

The Koch brothers are 74 and 78 years old. Their mentality is stuck in Cold War rhetoric because they lived through the whole thing. Same with most of the people they fool. The average Fox News viewer is almost 69 years old.

For people under 30, when you say Marxism, Stalin and Hitler, you might as well be talking about Emperor Wilhelm II.

Why would corporations be forced to improve? As Hobby Lobby taught us, "corporation" is just shorthand for the will of the rich stockholders. And they don't give a whit about the plight of the average American worker when they have access to the world. If they can't move the Malaysian to the US office, they'll move the US office to Malaysia. Visa problem solved.

Seriously this is what it's come to, editors? "As it lays 18,000 off workers"? You can't even proofread the title?

Anyway, it's mostly non-American Nokia employees who are being laid off, and it has nothing to do with the H1-B situation. So bottom line Sessions is an idiot.

Er, UNintended Consequences....that's totally what I meant to say...

Just because other people do things with their free time that you don't personally value doesn't mean that they don't value it. Some people just enjoy browsing in bookstores.

"Over five years in the late 1970s, the Southern Ocean warmed." Warming temperatures over a period of years is by definition climate change. If I write 1+1=2, I'm still doing arithmetic even if I don't specifically call it "arithmetic." True there's no advocacy-ready insinuation of man-made global warming being at fault, but that's not what the headline says either. It's an accurate encapsulation of what is in the article.

And don't know where you're getting "for unknown reasons" from. The only material change is that they went from thinking there was an outright population decrease to realizing that the birds were just nesting in a different region. But the article is still correlating the breeding grounds change with the period of oceanic warming.

Of course you can copyright a number. Every digital audio or video or text file is nothing but a number. That's what digital means. Yet they can be copyrighted.

Let me be clear. I was responding to a hypothetical. Having seen plenty of botched amateur free classics, I completely agree that there is a place for good editing, typesetting and so on. And an author might find genuine value in the marketing, publicity and distribution services of a publisher.

But a generation ago, a writer had no choice; they had to go to a publisher or face oblivion. Now, thanks in large part to Amazon, they have a choice, and I think that's a good thing. Like all transformative processes, there's an element of destruction as well, and I think that frightens people to some extent. Yes, some areas of the industry are on their way out. That doesn't mean writing itself is in peril. All this stuff about Amazon causing the majority of writers to quit and go back to trade school or what have you, hasn't really happened yet, and I'm unconvinced that it ever will happen.

Even if they drove all the publishers out of business, they still wouldn't be a monopoly because there are plenty of other bookstores, both online and off. If writers who are not represented by publishers don't like the terms Amazon offers, they can contract with another storefront and get better terms. Say Amazon wants to sell your book for $5, but bn.com is willing to sell it for $10. Why bother with Amazon? You're going to go to bn.com exclusively, as would any other writer. Amazon would then be forced to raise prices to compete with Barnes & Noble (or other retailer). That is, unless you wind up staying with Amazon because your gross income from Amazon is higher despite lower royalties, because of their much greater market share. If that's the case, and you're making more money from Amazon, then what's your complaint about their terms?

Or perhaps people don't want to buy your book for $10 at bn.com because Amazon has conditioned people into thinking that the proper price for a book is about $5. If that's the case, if people are willing to give up so easily on one author to buy from less expensive authors, then all that stuff about books being "non-fungible" isn't quite true, after all.

Finally, I simply don't believe that the author will make less money if the publishers are out of business. Getting rid of publishers will remove a whole class of people sucking the author's teats. With no publisher to pay off, Amazon could easily lower the price and still give a higher royalty to the writer.

If anything, DOF will become more important as home screens get larger and sharper. It's an important tool in showing the audience where to look in a shot. Otherwise, staring at that gigantic screen would sometimes be like a live action "Where's Waldo."

The problem, as calculus has shown us, is that when you are playing with the terms infinite or very large, what may be "obviously" true may not be correct.

Here are some confounding factors (some of which you mention).

* Lifespan of the software is not infinite
* Bugs take not only money to exploit, but time as well. As per Brooks' Law it is incorrect to assume you can reduce that time linearly by throwing more money at it.
* Not all bugs have the same level damage potential. E.g. a bug that requires end user stupidity is somewhat less severe than a bug that requires the end user to do nothing. A bug that requires you to have physical access to the device is much less severe than a bug that can be exploited remotely.
* Not all bugs are equally easy to discover
* There are a limited number of labs, whether white hat or black, capable of finding and implementing high-level exploits.

All that aside, your argument is just dodgy. "It doesn't even matter whether you have a prize program or not; the product is in a permanent state of unfixable vulnerability. " It costs $200 to see a doctor. If I visit the doctor and she discovers nothing, I've wasted $200. If I visit the doctor, and she discovers something, so what? There are an infinite amount of things that could be wrong with me, so no point in ever seeing a doctor, then.

Showing some math, even running a monte carlo simulation, would go a long way in convincing people you were in any way serious about this matter. As it stands, you're just pulling suppositions out of your nether regions.

Before that, people had pocket transistor radios, or carried around a larger cassette player (or a even a boom box). There was apparently an unreleased invention called the Stereobelt which predated the Walkman but was unable to secure funding, and something called the Bone Fone which came out around the same time as the Walkman, but which was not successful. But overall, agreed, the Walkman was a revolutionary product.