http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books?hl=en
rec.arts.books@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Bookstores Around the World (rec.arts.books) (FAQ) (IMPORTANT UPDATE) - 2
messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/t/92153a6882249799?hl=en
* Cheaper Kindle - 7 messages, 6 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/t/83369cb7977feb61?hl=en
* Now Available--Weird Words: A Lovecraftian Lexicon - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/t/a1ec18db1299613c?hl=en
* Gershwin Biographer Interviewed on NPR - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/t/22bc6e08afcd8bad?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Bookstores Around the World (rec.arts.books) (FAQ) (IMPORTANT UPDATE)
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/t/92153a6882249799?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Oct 15 2009 4:50 pm
From: dbd@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney)
Stanley Moore <smoore20@comcast.net> wrote:
>"David DeLaney" <dbd@gatekeeper.vic.com> wrote in message
>> Mike Schilling <mscottschilling@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>I don't know why it doesn't, but it never has. E.g. if it did, DOMA
>>>would be clearly unconstitutional.
>>
>> DOMA _is_ clearly unconstitutional. The problems are that a) nothing actually
>> STOPS Congress, or state legislatures or city councils, etc., from passing
>> laws that are unconstitutional, and b) nobody has actually taken the steps
>> needed to get DOMA struck DOWN as unconstitutional ... which steps do NOT
>> involve the legislative or executive branches, as everyone knows.
>
>Hasn't this problem already been forseen by legislatures all over? On the
>off chance that the Defense of Marriage Act gets struck down someday
>legislatures (and even George W. Bush tried on the federal level) submitted
>to the people propositons to amend their state constitutions to prevent sam
>sex marriage?
Several have. The issue with that being it's a variety of a); if DOMA does
get struck down for being unConstitutional, it's fairly certain that ALL those
newly-inserted clauses in various state constitutions ALSO will be easily
shown, by test cases (and fairly quickly) to be unConstitutional and thus
have to go Away. You can't have stuff in a state constitution that flat-out
contradicts the federal Constitution, after all; the federal one overrides them.
>In the run up to the vote here in Texas on this amendment that
>was one argument used by proponents. If the DOMA was nullified then the
>state constitution would hold sway. No need for pesky federal courts to
>interfere with Texas laws. Take care
Until the first case involving the Texas amendment that got to the state
supreme court, got ruled against, and appealed ... to the Feds. Which, as
I said, I can't see taking all that long. Either that, or the first case from
some other state that goes to the Feds will cause a judgement that -any- such
clause in any state's constitution violates full faith and credit, in which
case Texas is out of luck without ever needing a case to percolate up through
its own state courts.
Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from dbd@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Oct 16 2009 8:36 pm
From: David Johnston
On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 18:26:10 -0500, "Stanley Moore"
<smoore20@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>"Scott Lurndal" <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote in message
>news:F4OBm.738$nG7.133@news.usenetserver.com...
>> "Stanley Moore" <smoore20@comcast.net> writes:
>>>
>>>"David DeLaney" <dbd@gatekeeper.vic.com> wrote in message
>>>news:slrnhdamki.ba6.dbd@gatekeeper.vic.com...
>>>> Mike Schilling <mscottschilling@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>Francis A. Miniter wrote:
>>>>>> P.S. Why would you think that the Full Faith and Credit
>>>>>> Clause would not apply to marriage? The language of the
>>>>>> section does not make any limitations on the breadth of the provision.
>>>>>
>>>>>I don't know why it doesn't, but it never has. E.g. if it did, DOMA
>>>>>would be clearly unconstitutional.
>>>>
>>>> DOMA _is_ clearly unconstitutional. The problems are that a) nothing
>>>> actually
>>>> STOPS Congress, or state legislatures or city councils, etc., from
>>>> passing
>>>> laws that are unconstitutional, and b) nobody has actually taken the
>>>> steps
>>>> needed to get DOMA struck DOWN as unconstitutional ... which steps do
>>>> NOT
>>>> involve the legislative or executive branches, as everyone knows.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Hasn't this problem already been forseen by legislatures all over? On the
>>>off chance that the Defense of Marriage Act gets struck down someday
>>>legislatures (and even George W. Bush tried on the federal level)
>>>submitted
>>>to the people propositons to amend their state constitutions to prevent
>>>sam
>>
>> When doma is struck, any similar state constitutional amendment would also
>> be struck, for the same reason. State constitution can't trump the
>> federal constitution.
>>
>> scott
>
>
>Will it? Texas has a statute forbidding same sex marriage. We then passed a
>constitutional amendment to that same effect. Sort of like using a belt and
>suspenders. The idea was that if the feds strick down the statutes then the
>state constitution would trump the issue. I agree if DOMA falls the various
>state statures will be nullified but I am not so sure about the state
>constitutions. Take care
Given that the Supreme Court consistently holds that the Constitution
of the United States trumps any state constitution, not really an
issue.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Cheaper Kindle
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/t/83369cb7977feb61?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, Oct 16 2009 3:12 am
From: Mike Muth
On Oct 16, 1:37 am, "Stanley Moore" <smoor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> "mike muth" <mike.m...@unverbesserlich.org> wrote in message
>
> news:fbf8c0dc-1872-45e9-8f54-430aba4c05e7@11g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 11, 4:14 am, peachyashiepassion <exquisitepe...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Stanley Moore wrote:
> > > "William George Ferguson" <wmgfr...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
> > >news:hlcsc5do1ehv1k0bllh9pgtb07at4nhrna@4ax.com...
> > >> On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 15:17:52 +0300, netcat
> > >> <net...@devnull.eridani.eol.ee>
> > >> wrote:
>
> > >>> In article <6821cddd-a198-4b5a-a72e-23e30f032051
> > >>> @l31g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>, willad...@aol.com says...
> > >>>> On Oct 7, 4:09 pm, nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
> > >>>>> Do any of these alternatives offer an operating system that is not
> > >>>>> under remote control? i.e., no files can be deleted from the device
> > >>>>> unless the operator of the device deletes them?
> > >>>> That's the nature of DRM. I simply choose not to read any DRM files
> > >>>> and don't worry about such.
> > >>> I woulda thunk it more the nature of always-online devices that phone
> > >>> home.
>
> > >>>> FWIW, Amazon just settled a lawsuit and promised not to do that
> > >>>> again.
> > >>> I don't want promises, I want it to be physically impossible for them
> > >>> to
> > >>> paw at the content of my device whenever it suits them. Can the Kindle
> > >>> wireless connection be disabled?
> > >> On the original Kindle, there's a Wireless On/Off switch on the back of
> > >> the
> > >> device (beside the Power On/Off switch). On the Kindle II and the
> > >> Kindle
> > >> DX, there's a menu selection to turn the wireless connection on/off.
> > >> Basically, it's there for power usage conservation, you more than cut
> > >> your
> > >> power usage in half by not having the wireless connection on (from
> > >> personal
> > >> experience with the DX, it takes the battery about two days to run down
> > >> with the wireless connection turned on, and about a week with the
> > >> wireless
> > >> turned off, if you are reading it regularly).
>
> > >> If you're really paranoid, you could leave the wireless connection
> > >> turned
> > >> off all the time, send any kindle item you buy to your computer, and
> > >> download it to your kindle from your computer with a direct USB
> > >> connection.
>
> > >> I haven't seen anything yet that says Amazon can remotely activate your
> > >> wireless connection if it is turned off at your end. I don't think you
> > >> could get the level of energy savings that are present if the device
> > >> was
> > >> regularly turning the connection on to phone home (I don't think I
> > >> could
> > >> get four times the battery charge life using it regularly with wireless
> > >> off
> > >> if it were periodically turning the wireless back on to phone home).
>
> > > Plus, even it Amazon could do it (which I doubt) why would they? <G>
> > > Like
> > > Amazon is that interested in everyone's Kindle stuff. I keep my wireless
> > > off
> > > unless I want to buy something and it works great. I normally use my PC
> > > to
> > > order stuff (the keyboard on the DX is too small to be practical) and
> > > then
> > > turn on the wireless to automatically download the book. Take care
>
> > Interesting. I find the navigation unwieldy for searching, so I
> > search online and then send a sample to my Kindle for use to purchase.
> > I don't like to purchase on the computer because it makes me go through
> > the checkout for every book. It annoys me
>
> I buy my kindle e-books with one-click. I set that up when I got the
> Kindle 16 months ago and it still works fine. I recently bought
> _Unseen Academicals_ by one-click.
>
> --
> Mike
>
> Yeah the one-click is a real nifty idea. Unfortunately it make it very essy
> to spend money very fast <G>. Take care
It hasn't been too bad. I've been averaging one Kindle-format book a
week. Some of those were freebies.
I do spend a lot of time at the Baen Free Library and other places
where I don't need to buy the books.
I was one of amazon's earliest customers. for a couple of years after
the company came on line (and in the days before one-click), I spent
thousands of dollars. I don't regret a penny of it.
--
Mike
_I Eat Vegetarians: Cows are vegetarians, aren't they?_
_Tag Lines: bumperstickers for your e-mail_
http://wuf0170.livejournal.com
http://forums.delphiforums.com/Mikes_Place1
== 2 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, Oct 16 2009 7:54 am
From: Louann Miller
Errol <Errolgc@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:65c58bd9-0c05-4b21-a0fc-9a6a1b045dc4@u36g2000prn.googlegroups.com:
>> Having paid for a book once, a hypothetical reader might feel
>> justified i
> n
>> getting an informal backup copy as well to make up any deficiencies
>> (like DRM) in the paid-for copy.
>
> One of those lovely situations were everyone is guilty of something,
> but there isn't a fuss because if you keep your head down you don't
> get noticed and prosecuted(effectively by those that _think_ they have
> an interest in doing so).
In my specific case, getting the Kindle app for iPhone with the intent of
getting a cheap copy of the next JD Robb the day it comes out. I had been
thinking that all Kindle new books were $9.99 or so. I discover on the
Amazon site that "Kindred in Death" will be $14 and change. Which is only
_slightly_ lower than the deeply-discounted hardcover at Wal-Mart and my
local real bookstore. AND I have a gift card to my local real bookstore
at the moment. So it looks like I'm not going to be saving any trees on
this one.
(If a free market, non-DRM version of the e-book turns up at some point
later on -- as JD Robb usually does -- that would be a separate question.
For someone who bought the full-on hardcover which presumably gives the
author maximum royalties out of all formats.)
All I have on this Kindle app at the moment is a free Sherlock Holmes
collection. Any new books I buy Kindle will be competing not only with
dead trees (for things I expect to reread) but also with my local library
(for things I expect to read once and don't care if there's a bit of
delay.) I plan to read "Superfreakonomics" pretty soon, but probably not
on Kindle.
I'm not sure how often I _am_ going to use the Kindle app, frankly. For
some reason the ruthless DRM gives it a different emotional feel than
paid Fictionwise e-books that I can read several different ways.
Also as a general e-book reader remark, the iPhone (Stanza app) seems to
run its batteries down a lot faster than my old Palm TX did running
Mobipocket. That's not something I ever expected.
== 3 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, Oct 16 2009 1:40 pm
From: "D.F. Manno"
In article <mike-904708.16245515102009@news.eternal-september.org>,
Mike Ash <mike@mikeash.com> wrote:
> D.F. Manno <dfmanno@mail.com> wrote:
> > netcat <netcat@devnull.eridani.eol.ee> wrote:
> >
> > > But I very much _would_ like the use of Amazon's store for buying
> > > ebooks.
> > >
> > > But there's no way of doing that without actually buying a Kindle.
> > >
> > > Damn stupid of them.
> >
> > Really? It seems to have worked for Apple, with the iPod and the iTunes
> > Store.
>
> Say what? From the very beginning, you could buy music from the iTunes
> store and play it on your computer or burn it to a CD that could be read
> by anything that understands CDs. These days, virtually everything in
> the iTunes Store is DRM-free, meaning that you can play it on any device
> which understands the (non-proprietary) audio format that they sell, or
> convert it to a format which your device does understand.
>
> You've never been required to own an iPod to use the iTunes Store.
Before they dropped the DRM, the only portable media player that played
iTunes songs was the iPod.
--
D.F. Manno | dfmanno@mail.com
"Faith is a cop-out. If the only way you can accept an assertion is by
faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits."
(Dan Barker, former preacher, musician, b. 1949)
== 4 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, Oct 16 2009 2:05 pm
From: Kurt Busiek
On 2009-10-16 07:54:38 -0700, Louann Miller <louann_m@yahoo.com> said:
> Errol <Errolgc@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:65c58bd9-0c05-4b21-a0fc-9a6a1b045dc4@u36g2000prn.googlegroups.com:
>
>>> Having paid for a book once, a hypothetical reader might feel
>>> justified i
>> n
>>> getting an informal backup copy as well to make up any deficiencies
>>> (like DRM) in the paid-for copy.
>>
>> One of those lovely situations were everyone is guilty of something,
>> but there isn't a fuss because if you keep your head down you don't
>> get noticed and prosecuted(effectively by those that _think_ they have
>> an interest in doing so).
>
> In my specific case, getting the Kindle app for iPhone with the intent of
> getting a cheap copy of the next JD Robb the day it comes out. I had been
> thinking that all Kindle new books were $9.99 or so. I discover on the
> Amazon site that "Kindred in Death" will be $14 and change.
Actually it'll be $9.00, or so it says today.
A lot of times, they'll have a higher pre-publication price, or even a
higher price for a week or two and then drop to $9.99 -- I think they
dont want to cannibalize early sales; they want the book to hit the
bestseller list as fast as possible. But once a book hits the NYT
list, they drop the price to $9.99.
In this case, though, there seems to be a promotion going on -- both
the Kindle edition and the hardcover are listed at a prepub price of
$9.00 even.
So whichever version you want, you might want to save that gift
certificate for something pricier.
kdb
--
Visit http://www.busiek.com — for all your Busiek needs!
== 5 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, Oct 16 2009 3:08 pm
From: "W. Citoan"
D.F. Manno wrote:
> In article <mike-904708.16245515102009@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Mike Ash <mike@mikeash.com> wrote:
>
> > D.F. Manno <dfmanno@mail.com> wrote:
> > > netcat <netcat@devnull.eridani.eol.ee> wrote:
> > >
> > > > But I very much _would_ like the use of Amazon's store for
> > > > buying ebooks.
> > > >
> > > > But there's no way of doing that without actually buying a
> > > > Kindle.
> > > >
> > > > Damn stupid of them.
> > >
> > > Really? It seems to have worked for Apple, with the iPod and the
> > > iTunes Store.
> >
> > Say what? From the very beginning, you could buy music from the
> > iTunes store and play it on your computer or burn it to a CD that
> > could be read by anything that understands CDs. These days,
> > virtually everything in the iTunes Store is DRM-free, meaning that
> > you can play it on any device which understands the
> > (non-proprietary) audio format that they sell, or convert it to a
> > format which your device does understand.
> >
> > You've never been required to own an iPod to use the iTunes Store.
>
> Before they dropped the DRM, the only portable media player that
> played iTunes songs was the iPod.
Yes, but as Ash said you could still play them on your computer or burn
them to a CD. With Amazon, you can only use the Kindle or their Kindle
iPhone app. Apple & Amazon's strategies are not the same.
- W. Citoan
--
If a man can write a better book, preach a better sermon, or make a better
mouse-trap than his neighbor, though he builds his house in the woods, the
world will make a beaten path to his door.
-- Ralph Waldo Emerson
== 6 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, Oct 16 2009 5:12 pm
From: Mike Ash
In article <dfmanno-62F43E.16402216102009@news.albasani.net>,
"D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> wrote:
> In article <mike-904708.16245515102009@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Mike Ash <mike@mikeash.com> wrote:
>
> > D.F. Manno <dfmanno@mail.com> wrote:
> > > netcat <netcat@devnull.eridani.eol.ee> wrote:
> > >
> > > > But I very much _would_ like the use of Amazon's store for buying
> > > > ebooks.
> > > >
> > > > But there's no way of doing that without actually buying a Kindle.
> > > >
> > > > Damn stupid of them.
> > >
> > > Really? It seems to have worked for Apple, with the iPod and the iTunes
> > > Store.
> >
> > Say what? From the very beginning, you could buy music from the iTunes
> > store and play it on your computer or burn it to a CD that could be read
> > by anything that understands CDs. These days, virtually everything in
> > the iTunes Store is DRM-free, meaning that you can play it on any device
> > which understands the (non-proprietary) audio format that they sell, or
> > convert it to a format which your device does understand.
> >
> > You've never been required to own an iPod to use the iTunes Store.
>
> Before they dropped the DRM, the only portable media player that played
> iTunes songs was the iPod.
Not so. Plenty of portable CD players exist, and iTunes lets you burn
DRM music to CD. You have to qualify it even further, something like,
"the only portable hard drive or flash based media player".
I'll be the first to admit that portable CD players pretty much stink
compared to something like an iPod, and the first to say that DRM sucks
and should be taken out back and shot, but the fact remains that Apple's
music was *not* inherently tied to its music player, nor the other way
around.
--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon
== 7 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, Oct 16 2009 6:00 pm
From: Louann Miller
Kurt Busiek <kurt@busiek.com> wrote in news:hban6a$l39$1@solani.org:
>> In my specific case, getting the Kindle app for iPhone with the
>> intent of getting a cheap copy of the next JD Robb the day it comes
>> out. I had been thinking that all Kindle new books were $9.99 or so.
>> I discover on the Amazon site that "Kindred in Death" will be $14 and
>> change.
>
> Actually it'll be $9.00, or so it says today.
>
> A lot of times, they'll have a higher pre-publication price, or even a
> higher price for a week or two and then drop to $9.99 -- I think they
> dont want to cannibalize early sales; they want the book to hit the
> bestseller list as fast as possible. But once a book hits the NYT
> list, they drop the price to $9.99.
(having checked Amazon likewise) Sheesh. I wish they'd use the 'price' slot
to signal what the thing was going to cost.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Now Available--Weird Words: A Lovecraftian Lexicon
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/t/a1ec18db1299613c?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Oct 16 2009 3:17 am
From: Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
On Oct 14, 10:31 pm, Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
> Robert Carnegie wrote:
> > Dan Clore wrote:
> >> PRESS RELEASE
>
> >> EVENT:
>
> >> Weird Words: A Lovecraftian Lexicon, by Dan Clore, published by
> >> Hippocampus Press, is now available.
>
> > We worry, as always, for the typesetters. Does the doctor see any
> > signs of recovery yet? Well, early days, early days. Hmm...
> > shouldn't have put it like that.. :-)
>
> It was quite a job for the typesetter, and my eyes were konking out at
> the end so I had to beg off proofreading,
A lucky escape then. :-D
> I've found very few mistakes and none of any
> significance. I'm extremely pleased with the
> way the book came out.
Congratulations and well done! (Still leaving aside the possible
basic mistake in compiling a handy reference book about Things Man Was
Not Meant To Know. Magnificent terrible foolishness. ;-)
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Oct 16 2009 8:39 am
From: Dan Clore
Aaron Vanek wrote:
> Awesome Dan, congrats.
>
> Wish we could have met at the HPLFF. Next year?
Perhaps. And then I can begin my career as a movie star!
--
Dan Clore
New book: _Weird Words: A Lovecraftian Lexicon_:
http://tinyurl.com/yd3bxkw
My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
(Wait for the new edition: http://hplmythos.com/ )
Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://tinyurl.com/292yz9
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
-- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Gershwin Biographer Interviewed on NPR
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/t/22bc6e08afcd8bad?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Oct 16 2009 11:00 pm
From: mobious@waterloo.com
On September 17, 2009 Walter Rimler was interviewed on NPR station WILL
about his new book "George Gershwin: An Intimate Portrait." The interview
can be heard at:
http://will.uiuc.edu/media/aftmag090917.mp3
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rec.arts.books"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rec.arts.books+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
Has laoreet percipitur ad. Vide interesset in mei, no his legimus verterem. Et nostrum imperdiet appellantur usu, mnesarchum referrentur id vim.
0 comments:
Post a Comment