 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18/01/2011 05:26 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> no split infinitive. :-)
Oh Christ no... >_<
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18/01/2011 09:08 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Write a song that doesn't at least in some fundamental way
> follow basic musical structure, and it'll be nothing more than noise.
Ah - so you're familiar with Pink Floyd then? :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> 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.
Assuming people would follow the terms in the license agreement doesn't
seem bad or faulty to me. Anyway in this case it seems like there is
little or no financial loss to them, but in other cases the DRM is key
to being able to offer the content at a lower price (or even free, eg
BBC iPlayer). The problem is how to draw the line between what is right
and wrong from a legal point of view?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19/01/2011 1:35 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> "It will be John and I coming tomorrow" sounds fine to me in answer to
>> > "Who will be coming tomorrow?"
> It's a bit formal, and still doesn't sound right to me. In answer to
> that question, most people would say "John and I" or some variation
> thereof - "Me and John" would be grammatically incorrect, but what a lot
> of Americans would actually say, or "John and me" for that matter.)
>
Try "John and I are coming tomorrow" or "will be"
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19/01/2011 2:32 AM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> But, in general, books tend to have very sharp text, no blurring,
You are showing yor age Patrick ;-)
Books printed on pulp paper with hot metal were not only blurry the
lines of text were not straight.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18/01/2011 10:35 PM, andrel wrote:
> On 18-1-2011 22:51, Stephen wrote:
>> On 18/01/2011 7:02 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> 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. :-)
>>>
>>
>> Cause it sounds wrong.
>> How do non-native speakers identify wrong grammer, I wonder?
>
> Reading and listening a lot until you get a feeling for the language.
Oh! Just like native speakers :-)
Thanks Andrel.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19/01/2011 9:17 AM, Invisible wrote:
> On 18/01/2011 09:08 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>> Write a song that doesn't at least in some fundamental way
>> follow basic musical structure, and it'll be nothing more than noise.
>
> Ah - so you're familiar with Pink Floyd then? :-)
Heathen!
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> Write a song that doesn't at least in some fundamental way
>>> follow basic musical structure, and it'll be nothing more than noise.
>>
>> Ah - so you're familiar with Pink Floyd then? :-)
>
> Heathen!
Que Pink Floyd puns here...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcable com> wrote:
> On 1/17/2011 8:54 PM, Neeum Zawan wrote:
> > nemesis<nam### [at] gmailcom> writes:
> >
> >> yes, but not the screen size. Which means you can read in big letters
> >> and scroll all the time to see more text... :p
> >
> > Most ereaders have screens comparable to or bigger than paperback
> > books. If reading on an ereader is a problem, then reading a book will
> > be a bigger problem.
> But, in general, books tend to have very sharp text, no blurring, and
> very little glare, or light induced strain. So, no, it is possible to
> have no problem with a book, yet have problems with an ereader, the most
> common issue being the "blurriness" of the text on some models.
a non-issue for quite some time already ever since high resolution LCD displays
with their sharp pixels became the rule. And certainly even less of an issue
with the reflective nature of e-paper displays of e-readers like Kindle...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> But, in general, books tend to have very sharp text, no blurring, and
>> very little glare, or light induced strain. So, no, it is possible to
>> have no problem with a book, yet have problems with an ereader, the most
>> common issue being the "blurriness" of the text on some models.
>
> a non-issue for quite some time already ever since high resolution LCD displays
> with their sharp pixels became the rule.
I've yet to see any LCD that comes even close to the resolution of a
paper printout.
> And certainly even less of an issue
> with the reflective nature of e-paper displays of e-readers like Kindle...
That's more like it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
