See subject line.

If I buy a copy of a paper book then I own that copy. On an e-reader or a tablet I buy a license that lets me have a copy on a device. Unless I back up my copy, the seller can take it away from me without even asking. Also, there's something about a nice solid bound book that you don't get from an electronic copy. Personally I prefer electronic formats for more ephemeral things (news, computer books that are out of date before they're published, etc.) and bound paper copies for longer lasting things, e.g. Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. I suppose we'll see how things turn out.

Just put 'em in the autodoc.

All right, I'm in. Just on principle, I'm not buying any more Linksys/Cisco hardware until this gets reversed. On the slightly brighter side, this looks like multiple class action lawsuits waiting to happen.

Okay, let's roll: "General Kenobi, years ago you served my father in the Clone Wars. Now he begs you to help him in his struggle against the Empire ..."

Never is a really long time. And who said anything about "infinite progress?" That your dreams haven't been fulfilled, and probably won't be in your lifetime, doesn't mean anything about what will or won't happen in the future. Maybe we'll destroy ourselves. Maybe we'll build nuclear pulse propulsion ships (probably not a good idea, but ...), maybe a lot of things. You don't actually know, and so you say "never."

Of all the sources of science reporting that are available in English, New Scientist is close to the bottom of the pile in terms of accuracy. Quite a few times I've read something they've reported, thought "that can't be right," then gone to the original study or press release and found that in fact, no, what they reported was not correct.

I have a Nook. I mostly use it for reference stuff and for when I'm traveling (I generally prefer paper books, but well, the world changes). I like it, and I like Barnes & Noble. Now I'm really rooting for B&N. As a side note ... there was a thread a few days ago about "what's keeping you on Windows?" This is one of the reasons I don't use Windows. I know Windows 7 works well, probably better than any previous version. But I won't buy a product from a company that does stuff like this, i.e. abusing the patent system.

What I really need is one that understands the binary language of moisture vaporators. I wonder if they have any plans to make one.

But ... but ... I just learned in another thread that all versions of Linux were totally worthless and unusable and that anybody with any sense used Windows 7. Now I'm confused, somebody tell me what to think! :-(

I installed Linux on a vellum codex! I even included X11, but went with Xfce instead of GNOME 3. It's sweet, man ... very illuminated.

Yes, I know this was some years later ... Comic Book Guy: "Oh, Captain Janeway. Lace: The Final Brassiere.Oh hurry up, I'm a busy man. Ugh, this high-speed modem is intolerably slow."

This is news because a lot of people pay attention to every tiny little thing Apple does, and so they want to know about it. The objective importance of this is about the same as potato chips in a new flavor, or a new McSomething at McDonalds. That there's so much hype about those things because the companies involved market the hype. What's not news is that Apple is doing the same thing that every other company that sells products to consumers does, i.e. gets people to believe that unimportant things are important.

Remember, any kind of space travel was thought impossible at one time ... until the multi-stage rocket was invented. We need more creative thinking and less of this overly pessimistic nay-saying.

First, you seem to have forgotten the difference between "free as in free of charge" and "free as in freedom." Richard Stallman isn't saying that all software should be free of charge, but that morally you have a right to use the software you have in the way that you want; in practical terms that means access to the source code. Stallman never said that you can't sell it, or sell support for it.

Second, having a family to feed is irrelevant to this discussion if Stallman is right about the moral status of non-free software. His contention has always been that it is morally wrong to distribute non-free (as in freedom) software. If you had other alternatives, would it be okay for you to pick someone's pocket so that you can feed your family?

Third, your point about open source not being the savior of humanity or bringing world peace is a classic straw-man argument. Nobody is saying that "open source" is going to do those things. You may not like or agree with Stallman's positions or his arguments for them, but you should at least respond to what he's actually saying, and not some other thing which he didn't say.