You're much more likely to drop your paperback in the tub or leave it lying on your chair in the laundromat *because* the thing costs $6. You'll just be more careful with an ebook reader, same way you're careful with your $200 smartphone or camera wherever you take them.
Wrong analogy. More iPads sold now means fewer Win7 tablets sold later and a harder time for MS to catch up to Apple - Ballmer's position is perfectly sensible. This is different from being opposed to something that helps both iPads and Win7 tablets, which would be irrational.
I agree. When B&N launched the nook (supports epub!) sans 3G a couple of months ago, I took the plunge ($149). It made sense that Amazon would follow. $50 is not bad for lifetime 3G, but I personally wouldn't use it - at least with the current state of eReader hardware. Of course, when the predicted 'tablet convergence' occurs, free lifetime 3G will disappear, to be replaced with iPad-type monthly data plans.
With Kindles and Nooks headed below $100, probably by Christmas, this is not worth the eyestrain and massive headaches!
For updated Synergy, try the maintenance fork at http://code.google.com/p/synergy-plus/
Only foolish (lowercase f) investors believe market capitalization (or number of shares times share price) is meaningfull as any real metric of the value of a company or it's stock.
Why is this 'insightful'? Market cap is, by definition, the value of a company. And one of the most basic theories about market valuations is that they reflect all relevant information about the future of the company valued. Anyone who predicts the future direction of a particular stock is doing no better than flipping a coin.
Um, you can do that anyway - Facebook or not.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16815116030&cm_re=hd_pvr-_-15-116-030-_-Product
At least until they eliminate analog outputs. I own one and can say it works very well (up to 1080i) with 3-4 year old PC hardware. You get H.264 encoded m2ts or ts files with 5.1 sound. You can use it to record live TV, but I prefer to DVR the show then record off the DVR.
Here's a more likely explanation:
Current top story on Google news right now (11:52 EDT) is US and Russia sign nuclear pact, with a link to "all 6,108 news articles". The second story about the West Virginia mine disaster/rescue has more than 10,000 news articles. In what economic system can such redundancy survive (or would you want it to survive)? Even if 99% are syndicated wire stories, that still leaves 60 to 100 different original versions that are substitutable.
The technology has eliminated local news monopolies. Just because I live in NYC doesn't mean I have to get my news from the NY Times or any other local newspaper for that matter. The Washington Post, LA Times, even BBC news are direct competitors and perfectly acceptable substitutes. What this means is that they can't all survive, nor should they.
The fallacy in the Parent's argument is that market pressure on all news organizations doesn't mean all of them will go under (which would obviously be horrible). Market pressure usually means a culling with fewer competitors emerging. That's not a bad outcome for the reader. It's more efficient, and it's how markets are supposed to work!
In all your replies, you're confusing economic change due to technological innovation with change forced by regulation/taxation. The former is voluntarily adopted and is a net benefit to the economy, while the latter always comes at a net economic cost.
Of course there are exceptions. In particular, voluntary market behavior can sometimes lead to inefficient outcomes and pollution is a good textbook example of this - look up 'externalities'. You can argue that global warming is the result of a similar externality, and therefore it's worth incurring the cost of taxation/regulation now so we can reap the benefits of less warming later. But you can't argue (as you seem to do) that regulation in and of itself is a net economic benefit - that's just false.
Great, except that you need to classify carbon as "pollution" for your argument to make sense. And carbon is "pollution" only if it significantly contributes to global warming, so your argument has to assume its conclusion!
Limiting carbon emissions is expensive - that's why there is a legitimate argument about how much human contribution to emissions matters and whether incurring those costs now is the best way to respond to the risks of global warming in the future.
Funny you should use the 'vulture' analogy, because it implies the company taken over is already 'dead'. Even 'vultures' serve an important function in the 'ecosystem', movies like "Pretty Woman" not withstanding!
The market disagrees with both of you - market cap is 1.96B.
http://www.google.com/finance?q=novl
Of course, a takeover bid usually involves a significant premium, so offering 2B seems low.
Biology is the only science in which multiplication means the same thing as division.
