I wouldn't say that's entirely accurate. I see plenty of poorer people driving old less fuel efficient cars or that have spent all their money on a giant truck with mudding tires. Also, hybrids and electrics are currently anything but cheap and generally owned by the middle class or above.

That should say "see more than", not "see my than".

It's not that 1080p is only good on large TVs, it's that you won't get the full benefit depending on your viewing distance. Here's a handy chart:

http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html

And keep in mind that just because you may not be able to see all 1080 lines doesn't mean you won't still see my than the 480 lines on a DVD. So the image should still look better in most cases. Also, the BR format has better colors. The debate over 1080 and screen size is usually discussed when comparing 720p to 1080p TVs.

Looks like you simply didn't read far enough:

"Later that year, Sony and Philips Consumer Electronics (Philips) set up a joint task force of engineers to design a new digital audio disc. The task force, led by prominent members Kees Schouhamer Immink and Toshitada Doi (åoeYäå©å), progressed the research into laser technology and optical discs that had been started independently by Philips and Sony in 1977 and 1975, respectively.[2] After a year of experimentation and discussion, the taskforce produced the Red Book, the Compact Disc standard. "

Notice the use of "the taskforce" in that final sentence. The final version of the CD format was the result of a Sony and Philips joint project.

The mission will supposedly cost $78 million. A lot of money to the average person... but a drop in the bucket compared to the trillions we're wasting on needless wars and bailing out failed banks and automotive companies. Guess which I think is being better spent?

"Unless your physical security is tight, I'll almost certainly have a much easier time sneaking in and plugging in than I will trying to break WPA or better."

But this still entails a huge risk. You would be much more likely to find yourself in handcuffs and on your way to jail by attempting unauthorized physical access to a building. This is a huge deterrent even if the security once inside is easier to crack. Hell, why not argue that you should simply break into the server room?

Everything you listed is still more difficult, and more risky, than simply being in range of the wireless network.

Kindle provides access to magazines and newspapers.

Anyway, as I said, it depends on how you use the material. If you like to loan out and show off your collection, then stick with physical books. But don't assume your wants apply to everyone. I enjoy the convenience of having a new book instantly, of never having to bookmark my last location, being up to look up words instantly, not having to carry around weighty books on trips, not having to worry about needing a new bookcase or where to place said bookcase, being able to search the text of the book, being able to instantly jump to specific locations in the book, etc...

There's plenty of upside to ebooks. And those upsides were enough for me to switch. So I'm glad devices like the Kindle exist.

Your one example of a book in a supermarket is pretty weak. I'm sure there are other examples out there of physical books being cheaper, but that are also hundreds of examples of ebooks being cheaper. Including the thousands of public domain books which are free in ebook format, but cost money in physical format.

I will say though that I think many ebooks should be a couple of bucks cheaper, but in many cases they are cheaper than physical books.

Wait... you're complaining about Kindle's DRM and you chose an iPod Touch instead? What's the difference? The Kindle doesn't require that you actually buy DRM'd content. It supports DRM free files too.

And for why e-readers exist... convenience. Plain and simple. Buy books online and have them instantly. You entire library can exist in a single device instead of on a physical bookshelf. Making your collection both easier to store and transport... plus doing away with the need to even own a book shelf. Run across a word you're unfamiliar with while reading? The built-in dictionary can look it up for you instantly.

It all depends on how much you read and what you do with your books afterward. For some people physical books may indeed be the better option. I used to feel the same way until I actually used an ereader, now I don't bother with physical books any more.

His Kindle wasn't bricked and I doubt he lost any books. I think he just got cut off from subscription based content (newspapers, magazines, etc...). That still shouldn't happen, but it's quite clear that many of the comments are comeing from people don't have any experience with a Kindle.

WOL?

Then TWC needs to be as heavily regulated as other utilities. Last year they PROFITED over 4 billion on their data services. The cost to maintain their network was roughly $150 million and was actually lower than the previous year. So why don't they put some of that money toward increasing capacity?

Also, there's a pretty clear difference between using up a physical resource like water or electricity which must be generated and consuming bandwidth.

Yeah, a combo of quota + throttling. But if you're going to throttle when you hit the cap, I'd just rather see throttling when the network maxes out. This way you can still get good speeds during off-peak hours.

Throttling is easily better caps if the throttling is transparent and fair. With caps you will either hit a wall and your connection will cease to work or you will be hit with overage charges. I'd much rather see a sensible throttling scheme that is applied ONLY when the system is hitting maximum capacity. But how about this for option D:

d) Spend some those billions in profits to upgrade the network.

As recent reporting has shown, TWC profited over 4 billion on their data services last year and their expenses actually dropped.