And how long do you expect the digital copies to last? If most of these books were available as freely copiable files, there would be some hope that enough copies would survive in digital media. But what about DRMed copies? Do you think that the few servers actually storing the books in plaintext would survive longer than physical books? That's the point of TFA.
The cemetery is full of irreplaceables - believe me, the world and the company will go on if you are hit by a bus. They will just hire another serf.
I agree - Monkey Island doesn't support Multiplayer but you can try to solve the puzzles together, which are difficult but hilarious. It's really the best choice for this age, and like a Pixar movie, it has jokes for all ages, understood differently by all ages (think Shrek).
If you are looking for something with more action without much of a plot (considering that you mentioned Diablo), you might also want to try Nintendo's Super Metroid. It's very action oriented but it has some great puzzles and it will challenge her motor skills as much as her intellect. There is a great review for the game here : http://blitzky.com/2011/05/30/super-metroid/.
Don't worry, huh? There are more Androids than Apple computers out there... While I believe some people store pretty important information on their phones and "pads", I tend to think that malware in a deskptop is a much more serious threat to people - maybe because most people store their most personal and sensitive information in desktops?
and this is why the current implementation of capitalism is fatally flawed, it is founded on fraud, deception, and innuendo. facebook is valued at $50 billion dollars even though it makes very little money and will wither and die just like every other hit social network when something else comes out.
Wow, and this was modded "Insightful"? Capitalism is flawed because it allows people to try to anticipate the future? The reason facebook is worth 50bn is because there is a large number of people (or a small number of people with large means and beliefs) that think that it either produces lots of good and services (not the case) or WILL produce lots of goods and services (it does produce services and looks like it will produce more in the future).
Capitalism is also about trying to anticipate the future and allocating resources to more productive venues or potentially more productive venues. 30 years ago, many people would also doubt that MS would amount to anything - and, for good and for bad, it produced the infrastructure that allowed hundreds of millions, if not more than a billion, people to be productive with computers. And today, not many people think that MS will keep producing more and more products that will be useful to people so its valuation reflects that.
People can frequently wrong, so it's possible that facebook will amount to nothing. But giving the opportunity for people to invest on businesses they believe on is what is right with capitalism.
10 years ago Amazon tried providing differentiated pricing for different customers under the same premise: they would charge based on what the customer is willing to pay. It was a catastrophe. Angry customers would complain that their loyalty was being punished by higher prices.
Unfortunately, this happens to be one of those ideas that look good on paper but are bad in practice. A much better system than paying $60 for each game is basically letting the free market decide - this is the current model Amazon and other retailers employ. They have sophisticated algorithms to ensure maximum profits for the retailers and take in consideration the desires and moods of the masses. You might think that these algorithms would ensure "maximum rip offs", but at the end it creates the generally "fair" prices that many popular internet retailers charge.
Lucky for you, Google's model for maximizing profit depends on a free and open internet based on freely implemented standards. And they do that so they can keep making a bundle providing the best internet search tool around (with the least obtrusive advertising model). That means Google makes money by making Android exactly what you want it to be. A pretty good deal all around. No wonder nobody's screaming that they're against software freedom - they're not.
Nobody? RTFA! This post is exactly about how Google is beginning to restrict software freedom.
So when only few but possibly really interested people are following your posts compared with thousands not really interested but still following some small starlet that is sad - why? One more thing as a side note really: there are of course quite some that are obsessed with starlet sex life too but I guarantee you that you do not want to be followed by those. So here we are - comparing mob against few friends.
Yeah, this is a good point. It always seemed to me that twitter got popular becuase people wanted to be startlets and be followed by the mob. Not that everybody who uses twitter wants that, but I think the possibility of being a star appeals to lots of people. I think there are other services that are probably better if all you want is to be followed by close friends.