 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18/01/2011 04:39 PM, Stephen wrote:
> On 18/01/2011 4:24 PM, Darren New wrote:
>> I'm guessing at least half are made-up words (since I'm reading sci-fi).
>
> That is a proble with SF.
Irony.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18/01/2011 4:00 PM, Neeum Zawan wrote:
> Stephen<mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> writes:
>
>>> I love my Sony. The interface is really good.
>>
>> Me too!
>> The Sony software is Crap, IMO. I use Calibre exclusively.
>
> I use the Sony software only to buy stuff from their store.
>
get points. So I never use the Sony software at all.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18/01/2011 4:43 PM, Invisible wrote:
> On 18/01/2011 04:39 PM, Stephen wrote:
>> On 18/01/2011 4:24 PM, Darren New wrote:
>>> I'm guessing at least half are made-up words (since I'm reading sci-fi).
>>
>> That is a proble with SF.
>
> Irony.
No thick fingers. I've been all thumbs today.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 08:41:52 +0000, scott wrote:
>> Not for the Nook, as I can associate any Nook with my account and
>> access my content.
>
> Why remove the DRM then?
If I want to read using Calibre, I have to. Or for convenience, in the
event that (for example) the credit card expires (which they do). Since
the CC# is part of the hash used in the DRM scheme, if I have a lot of
books that I've purchased (which I do have, actually, though most of them
are free downloads from the B&N site), when I update the CC information,
I have to re-download all the books again.
So there's a convenience factor.
>> Making customers have to re-buy material because they lost access would
>> be very poor customer service indeed.
>
> Obviously they're not doing this on purpose, just that if there is some
> tiny chance that people would rebuy, whereas without DRM they wouldn't,
> then this would get factored in to the finances.
I can't help it if they make bad or faulty assumptions in their pricing
model.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 11:04:01 +0000, scott wrote:
> eg "Me and John will be
> coming tomorrow" or "It will be John and I coming tomorrow"
"John and I will be coming tomorrow" - no split infinitive. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 11:04:01 +0000, scott wrote:
>
>> eg "Me and John will be
>> coming tomorrow" or "It will be John and I coming tomorrow"
>
> "John and I will be coming tomorrow" - no split infinitive. :-)
There's no infinitive in either version. It's perfectly acceptable to split
up words that are part of the verb, and indeed it's how you express a
question. We even have a word we use when splitting up a one-word verb so
that we can stick something in the middle.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> the CC# is part of the hash used in the DRM scheme,
That was one of the clever tricks I thought *I* invented 30 years ago. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 09:42:52 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> There's no infinitive in either version.
True, I did misname it - but I found the sentence structure awkward as
originally written. Just misidentified why it was awkward. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 09:44:46 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> the CC# is part of the hash used in the DRM scheme,
>
> That was one of the clever tricks I thought *I* invented 30 years ago.
> :-)
:-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> writes:
> I'm not sure I agree with that.
>
> It's pretty easy to write a document and put it online somewhere. It's
> pretty easy to make some music and put it online somewhere. Either way,
> you don't really need a publisher.
>
> If you want to earn money, and if you want publicity, you probably need
> a publisher.
I suspect marketing is a lot more effective with music than with
books. And music is different: Not many people buy random albums from
nobodies while in a music store. With books, they do.
> I don't really see how ebooks are different from music, video, or
> anything else.
Try to see if you can dig up the profit margins publishers operate
on. It's often quite low. At times, a bestselling author makes more
money than his publisher does (after you take out expenses).
Or so I've heard.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
