There are more variables to the equation than simply the lack of publication costs. People with e-readers tend currently towards the high end of the income spectrum. And at least a measurable minority, including myself, are willing to pay just as much or more for an ebook.
I've managed to reduce my book collection from 7000+ to a few hundred, and I absolutely do not want the clutter of another physical book. I don't want to wait for it to be shipped to me, and I don't want to deal with it after I've finished reading it. I strip Amazon's DRM with calibre and keep around 800 books on my Kindle.
So, I'll happily pay equal price or even more for an ebook copy. Multiple times in the last few years, I've forgone reading books that sound interesting because they're not in an ebook format. Blame me, and people like me, if you wish.
Wow, so every CD-R sold in Canada is an "audio CD-R"!
Remember those, in the last days of record stores? Sold near the cash register, marked up because of the royalties paid to music industry? They had great little descriptions on them "Designed for premium audio experience" and "bit-perfect recording for when it matters for your sound experience".
"You are asking us to accept a meaning which is the opposite of the original meaning."
So? Such things are already common enough that we have a word for entire class: contranym. You can run fast, or you can be stuck fast. You determine what is meant by context.
The figurative use of literal (which is NOT new--it's almost as old as the word itself) is most often used in the context of hyperbole. There's the context needed.
Words naturally accrue other meanings as time passes. "Truly", "really", and "actually" for a brief time meant in a true, real, or actual manner. They still can mean that, in context. Or, in other context, like hyperbole:
It's been such a dismal day I'm really dying for some amusement," said Meg
(from Alcott's Little Women).
Anyway, partisans for literal literally's lost the fight before it ever began. It's been used that way for over 300 years now. No one objected to it for two centuries. If you wanted to stop it, you should have started trying in the late 17th century.
Of course, a lot of the evidence against John Walker Lindh was obtained after he was repeatedly denied access to a lawyer, and when he was threatened with denial of pain medicine and treatment for agonizing wounds. He was kept in the conditions that make Manning's solitary treatment look positively generous and humane (completely restrained, blindfolded, locked in a metal container in near-freezing conditions, subjected to sleep deprivation).
I'm just curious about this response. I've seen a couple reports in the mainstream media that Richard Dawkins is an "agnostic". It's pretty clear, after reading, that none of the authors have ever read any of Dawkins' books, or anything more than the most basic summary.
But to accuse him of being a gnostic, an adherent to one of the mystery religions prominent around the east and south regions of the Mediterranean basin in the second and third century C.E., that believes in secret knowledge delivered by divine forces... that seems beyond the pale. What evidence do you have to accuse him of such ... outright, frank irrationality?
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by allengarvin.