In his incredibly naive mind he imagines a stream that is limited to one person at a time and backed by a physical DVD.

Or at least I'm pretty sure that's what he meant, reading his whole missive would lower the IQ of anyone by ten points.

Do you not remember CDNow, and the virtual CD service? You probably don't since it was annihilated in a legal storm of massive furor.

Why is Netflix being unable to offer "virtual CD"s any more complicated than "movie studio lawyers do not like it"??

Creating a system where the poor can't afford to sue because they may have to pay for the other guy's legal costs means that only the rich would be able to afford to defend themselves.

That's already true, so lets make life better for most instead of none (legally speaking).

Well ,unless you really love lawyers who benefit most from the "sue everyone and see what sticks" approach.

Computers mean efficient communications and stored knowledge. ALL of the things you mention have been made better through information stored and shared via computers.

Computer Science is thing thing that amplifies everything else, making it more accessible to everyone and not just first world countries.

Points to Ms Clinton for asking that money be put to fundamental development and the general betterment.

How sad that more people do not realize computers have brought "General Betterment" to more people than most inventions in history.

The BamBaoni 5000

Don't miss the Penny Arcade Surface Pro 3 feedback, as it gives some good solid thoughts on usability hiccups - which it sounds like Microsoft is going to great lengths to address quickly.

His take is especially interesting because he uses it heavily for art.

Are you sure your not looking to rationalize a toy?

No, it's very useful for development work to have programming stuff on one monitor and design things n another. It's not rationalization.

But that's also why I'm not sure about three monitors, because I don't as often have use for three separate "views" as it were.

It's not a bad idea but I don't want the fiddling (and cables) associated with that many monitors.

The customer's time is valuable too. If they can get at the relevant information more quickly by asking you to read the manual to them than by reading it themselves, then they have saved time that can now be put to productive use.

Even if a product margins were 90% you would not be paying enough to have anyone do that for you.

It's like you bought a new car and with no training or help expect to run the Dakar rally...

That's ust plain unreasonable.

I don't believe that - unless you have a screen the size of a small movie theatre your eye cannot distinguish between 4k and 1080p resolution pixels.

It's not that large of a screen you can plainly see the difference, especially sitting at a few feet (as you do with a computer monitor).

You should go to CES sometime where you can see lots and lots AND LOTS of different displays all using the same source material, then you can tell for yourself...

Really? Many people like dual monitors, which gives lots of horizontal resolution and not so much vertical.

Yes really. I use multiple monitors most of the time, but I find my current second display (A cheapish HD monitor) at 1080p, is jet a bit too short. I've been looking at second monitors that offer more vertical resolution (looking strongly at 4K).

Although extra space to either side is nice in the end vertical space is often more useful for the task at hand.

So would it also be ok if publishers colluded with cell phone stores to instead sell jailbroken iPhones that purchase and download the books directly from the publishers,

Why not? Although your analogy breaks down badly because none of what you advocate is bypassing a monopoly the way Amazon's kindle has a monopoly on eBooks. The Android market sells plenty of apps too.

There is a pretty tried and true method to handle monopolistic businesses: petitioning the government to start an anti-trust investigation

Pretty hard when the government has it against you to begin with.

Ever hear of the concept of civil disobedience? Doing something technically unlawful in pursuit of the greater good is a time honored tradition, and companies that participate in same should be lauded, not attacked.

Out of the goodness of Steve's heart (and he has a rich history of goodwill) he tried to help the poor publishers out?

Not sure why everyone is so confused about this.

It was not out of Apple's goodness. It was not even legal. What I am saying is that against a real monopolists, some rules against group actions should be abolished. Amazon is able to dictate terms and harm publishers without recourse because Apple (the only serious challenger against Amazon consuming the whole eBook market) was slapped down along with the publishers trying to help distribute control.

Why you all make it out to be it has to be Apple being good to be helpful is beyond me, it's not about Apple's benevolence but about allowing actual competition in market where one company is running roughshod.