at 50 cents a day, if you read a paper every day, you could pay for the e-reader in two years. however, usually sunday papers are more expensive, so you may be able to pay for the e-reader sooner.

and if you just buy sunday papers, it would probably take at least 3 years to pay the same amount as the e-reader.

however, if the newspapers made their materials available for download/e-mail to other e-readers, and made their own e-readers capable of opening other txt/pdf type files, then they would undoubtedly find that more people were willing to pay the lower cost for their more simple e-readers... rather than the more expensive cost for the kindle and sony readers which have mp3 players and other possibly unnecessary accessories built in.

having cheaper e-readers would provide a middle ground for those of us not yet willing to pay for the kindle or sony reader.

- i'm still waiting for the day, where like in star trek, everybody has a kindle like device that can provide reading materials (books and news papers), take memos, retrieve endless amounts of data wirelessly (wikipedia, wikitionary...), do complex mathematical calculations, play simple puzzle games, provide for txt based communication (at least), and automatically update schedules for registered classes at college (and the likes), as well as provide emergency information in the case of a hurricane or whatever... et cetera.

the day is coming when all these things and more will be possible; and to me these uses alone are so awesome that investing in the technology now to help it grow is wholly worthwhile.

if only it was an actual cell phone too, and had two screens, one for color/video that could be used when desired and then the e-ink screen for primary use to assure long battery life.

heck with todays tech one could switch from one side to the other just by turning it over (when unlocked), and most importantly the touch interface could remain active on the opposite side, so you could select things without your fingers being in the way of the screen.

i can prove you wrong:

FIRST, WORKER OWNED COOPS:

the only difference between worker owned coops and for-profit corps is that they function to pad the pockets of the employees rather than the CEOs and stock holders (sunkiss, dairygold and wilco are good examples of this). they do also put a lot of focus on employee benefits and wellbeing, but that's only because the owners are the employees, they cannot be trusted to function in the best interest of all humanity or the environment because of their focus on profit. please forgive me for not clarifying the difference between non-profit worker operated coops, non-profit member operated coops and for profit coops. i do not support for-profit coops.

the focus of my statements was non-profit businesses and their ability to correct the horrifically negative consequences of the control major selfish forces have had over the entire world since time eternal. first kings, then religions, then governments, banks and corporations (or whatever other forms). not that some kings, or operators of governments, banks, and corporations havent also been fairly philanthropic; what i'm saying is that that the focus of these things has overwhelmingly been used to gratify the needs of the few over the many, despite whatever intentions they may have had to begin with or how they may have supposed to have worked. and this is because of the built in ability of these systems to be used for selfish pursuits.

non-profits can, undoubtedly, be designed easily to do just the opposite... to enforce civil service and accountability despite the financial cost. mind you the financial cost does not include the true cost; which requires the consideration of the consequences of all actions while defining the value of a product: be that product energy itself, a tangible object, or a social service.

the accountability built into a true non-profit would force it to continuously work to better define the true cost of a product and make sure that it's customers are paying for what they use.

SECOND, FACTORS:

in the scheme of things, i allow for the use of both customer operated and also employee operated non-profits, since i don't believe all products need to be developed with the direct influence of the customer. in fact, i believe that some businesses would be hindered by the need for their influence.

a good example might be an agency that's designed to develop and maintain, as well as continuously improve, a satellite communications system. such a system would still need to be protected from vandals, despite how peaceful the world ever becomes there will always be somebody who gets a kick out of destroying other peoples things. such a system would also be so technically advanced that very few people not already working there would be able to understand enough about the technology to influence positive change in it's development. however all the details of the technology that didn't need to be protected from vandals should be available and open for discussion, just like the linux kernel and other opensource software. the internal business discussions would also be made public, after any details are removed that would make it easy for vandals to compromise the system.

so anybody could still influence the improvement of the technology, and anyone could also monitor their behavior as an institution and speak out if the organization started to overstep it's bounds and act in an irresponsible manner. and because the agency was bound by it's charter and fairly limited in size it would be fairly easy for a small coalition of people to organize against it, prove it's actions inappropriate--if they were so--and have the charter revoked.

also, the bylaws of the business charter itself would disallow for second chances for it's directors, should they be proven to have participated in any conspiracy to benefit anyone financially through either the action or inaction of the organization.

so both the governments judicial system as well as the bylaws that govern the organization could influence dire consequences should the organization fail to either change it's ways when it discovered a more efficient and sustainable way to do things, or if it at any point participates in a conspiracy to aid in the the financial profiteering of anyone, whomever they may be.

CONCLUSION:

i could talk all day about the benefits of non-profits, and how we can use them. you obviously don't know enough about them, most people don't. my point is that because the businesses charter, it's constitution, can severely constrain it's ability to do harm, as well as the ability of it's employees or members to allow it to do harm--either through action or inaction--it's the only foreseeable solution to the problems we see in the world today.

we cannot continue to fight a legal battle between what are supposed to be selfless governments and selfish corporations, our entire existence as a species is at risk.

the rules i've set forth for any non-profit cooperative to use to ensure the safety of our planets future are sound. they are like the three laws governing robots as designed by issac asimov, they're very simple. but they need to be elaborated on during their incorporation into a businesses charter, to account for the specific purpose and location of the business

rule 1. sustainability: a true non-profit must not, through action or inaction, harm the environment.

protecting the environment is paramount if humanity is to survive indefinitely. not that we can guarantee that humanity will survive indefinitely, but we can at least assume at this point that we can and should refrain from causing our own extinction. which is what will eventually occur if we continue to destroy the very systems that sustain us.

we are also a part of our environment, so rule 1 would require protection for it's employees from harm by the organization and it's operators (healthcare, fair labor practices, high safety requirements).

this would provides relief for our environment and the lack of a need for many nationally financed agencies that are constantly fighting a losing war against many billion dollar industries.

we don't need to continue chasing our own tails.

rule 2. cooperation: a true non-profit must allow for the cooperation of all of humanity in order to comply with rule 1.

this includes cooperating to produce goods, research technologies, govern the actions of the organizations, and research both the consequences of future and current practices.

this requires true and thorough organizational transparency, and the exclusive use of open source technology.

and this provides a lack of need for yet more government spending used to monitor businesses and how they function.

rule 3. accountability: a true non-profit must allow for it to easy be dismantled should it be proven incapable of continuing to manufacture it's product without violating rule 1 or rule 2.

proper dismantling requires the redistribution of assets to other non-profit organizations or to the government. redistribution can included the donation of assets to a new organization designed specifically to replace the old. however the old organization must technically be dissolved completely.

this manner of accountability requires that the old model be thrown out completely and a new organization be formed completely from the ground up. even though it can still use the same facilities and personnel as the first.

this is an adaption of the recycling process.

and this guarantees obviously that if a product, be it a tangible item or a social service cannot be produced without direct harm to people or the environment, or without being done so while under public scrutiny, than it need not be produced.

rule 4. optional (depending on national laws): a true non-profit must only function to produce a limited spectrum of products for a specific and small group of people.

this rule really needs to be rewritten depending on where it's to be used. some nations don't require that a non-profit limit it's membership base to a small enough size to guarantee that the first 3 rules are followed. and there isn't a simple number of people any non-profit organization can attend to efficiently... but before a charter is accepted as complete it's maximum possible size should be defined within the charter.

this can also be rewritten to insist that one organization doesn't control too many aspects within any single industry, thereby limiting the possibilities of the industry.

the united states has laws limiting what a non-profit organization can do and how many people it can serve, and for the most part those laws are probably sufficient. but in order to maximize the potential for innovation and productivity it only makes sense to thoroughly distribute the responsibility of producing most goods and services throughout a very diverse and widespread group of people.

plus limiting size is probably also necessary for rule 3 to be followed. and anyone seriously interested in doing good rather than making money can probably rewrite the wording of my rules to better suite their needs without jeopardizing their ability to produce an acceptable result.

so don't get on my about the vagueness of my optional rule 4.

no... use a business model that is responsible, namely non-profits and cooperatives.

why do people always want to rely on others to do everything for them?

right now we mostly use the non-profit business model for the civil service industry: libraries, fire departments, community services. we also have credit unions and coop grocers; and with their national associations those two are growing in popularity steadily. but we need to use the non-profit business model to replace the major players in insurance and healthcare, transportation and construction, and energy, and other forms of production and especially entertainment.

this would do away with the need for cities, states, and the 'slow' gov to focus so much energy trying to monitor and control the businesses in this country, cause they'd all be controlled instead by the people who use what they produce, as well as the strict rules for how a non-profit can operate; their business charters wouldn't allow them to function as selfish entities!

it would then be easy for a small group of people operating one of the fifty national independent automobile manufacturing plants to change one of their practices if they found a better way to do something, or discovered that the way they did it already was dirtier... then, through a national association, they could transmit that information to the other forty-nine manufacturers so they could either decide to adopt the new way, democratically, or seek out a better way.

this allows for the greatest ability for humans to work together for their true benefit, rather than for individual profit, and it also allows for the easy adoption of sustainable practices throughout our world society... at no cost greater than simply choosing philanthropy over greed.

try and find a flaw in all that, please. i'm still working on the whole idea, but no one has been able to poke holes in the idea that philanthropy, via non-profit businesses, can succeed easily where for-profit businesses have failed.

you don't need laws to govern responsible businesses!

solve the problem at the base!

i'm logged in, i have no idea why that posted anonymously... but i think reposting would be silly, so...

the above post was by me folks! ; )

yeah, you're totally right, solar power isn't already more cost efficient than the loss of our entire freaking planet.

we should probably just all start burning everything--our homes and our children, cause there's nothing better for us to do than speed up the process.

sit boo boo, sit.

and this is why someone needs to find some funding and start manufacturing electric cars via a local non-profit cooperative organization that only leases cars, takes anything as a trade in and recycles it, and handles all maintenance on site.

advertising for a non-profit is a cheap cheap cheap, financing shouldn't be hard considering those interested and willing to pay small down payments to help start production, finding employees wouldn't be difficult either.

start something! and holler my way if you need help!

why speak out, and ask someone else to do it for you? they wont, this isn't a democracy.

make change for yourself... start a local non-profit cooperative!

and read my other comments or hit me up if u need help!

but we're part of nature too. so we'd be dead too... so really the universe would probably be the only thing possible of missing anything, and from what it told me yesterday while we were out to dinner at DQ was that it wouldn't really miss anything since 1 in 14,000 planets in the verse could sustain some kind of life. though that life may not be nearly as amusing.

the people who benefit most now are the ones:

'phasing' in new technologies so they can leech a good amount of profit every step on the way...

the media who can't seem to write enough controversial articles about GW despite the fact that the scientific majority say it's happening and that it's our fault...

and all the greedy for-profits companies that keeping popping up with new ways to supposedly 'recycle' our waste... but of course making glass--which is nearly infinitely recyclable--into long term use counter tops, and turning plastic bottles--that can be reused and recycled for years--into park benches so they can degrade slowly and their particles can contaminate our parks even more thoroughly isn't really what they meant by reduce, reuse, and then :recycle.

DVDFab is a newer DVDDecrypter with more features.

it is a broken system... meant at one time to protect peoples ability to make a living, but now it simply limits societies ability to evolve humanly, as well as our ability to use all our most brilliant ideas to be greatest benefit of mankind.

broken is an understatement.

personally, i like a lot of music, and i'd pay to support the artists DIRECTLY... but i have a terabyte hard drive, and and a multimedia phone, and a deep desire to protect the environment... i don't need to purchase CDs or DVDs, and i will not financially support any organization that sues civilians for non-commercial infringement because i consider it to be completely uncivilized and inhumane.

i would rather see those organizations be put out to pasture. music itself would continue to be produced without them: the loss of these betrayers of humanity would only benefit society.

i consider any act of non-commercial infringement to be a beneficial act of human evolution!!

Vivir el revolucion de mente!!

the perception of the copyright holder is of no importance in a legal case, the law is based on the perception of majority rule--this being a democracy. and from what i've seen the majority ruling is that non-commercial copyright infringement is a seriously foolish notion.

to consider somebody guilty of a crime for sharing, and giving away what they have for free... isn't the act of punishing someone for either of these things uncivil and inhuman?

you shouldn't have to read between the lines... furthermore if one is required to in order to understand any law they should no longer be held accountable for violating such a law.

to retort, if a layman cannot understand a rule they should not be held liable for violations of said rule.

so, if the law said simply: that individuals don't have the right to make 'any' copies of materials they didn't originally make without permission, or the right to aid others in experiencing or acquiring said illegal copies--whether it is known to them that they are illegal copies or not. then fair use would no longer exist, and file sharing and public displays of copied materials would be illegal.

however, the law does not say this.

personally, i think the whole ideas of piracy and copyright need to be redefined to disregard 'free use', and by that i mean any use that doesn't cause the user to profit. so as long as you're playing cam copies of movies in you garage for free for neighborhood kids, you cannot be sued or charged with a crime; and as long as you're not producing CD's or selling AVI's online for profit you cannot be sued or charged with a crime.

how someone could be charge with a crime for giving something away for free is beyond me. albeit i understand copyrights were put in place to protect an inventors right to profit from their invention... but wasn't it really to keep other people from profiting off their ideas, not to keep individuals from using those designs for themselves.

can't i go online and snag a copyright for a folding table, make it at home and use it, without being sued for copyright infringement. and what happens when i get a table from IKEA and give the table i made to my neighbor... am i a pirate for distributing copyrighted materials for free? could i go to jail or be sued yet again?

wouldn't that lawsuit be considered not only unfair, but blatantly stupid, and thrown out of court?

i see no difference between the table and an MP3 file.

if you look at the the whole situation as simply as you can it's ridiculous. and the solution is obvious. simply rewrite the laws to allow for 'free use' and 'sharing'. these things don't hurt anyone!! we're all taught they're good things our entire life!

i know i wont be teaching my children not to share for fear of punishment by selfish men, and neither should you.