New Yorker magazine alert thread

my fault for missing the crucial second-hand fact of the book in that example

fwiw, a new physical copy costs $1.00 more than the kindle version

"fwiw", heh.

in aus the physical costs $13 and the download is $6.50

fwiw fwiw my digital subscription works out to ~$1.05 per issue fwiw

i mostly buy my books used through amazon, great deals

i often find kindle versions costing more than the paperback

(new)

Wow, that marathon dude.

I'm generally miffed that the library only had x copies of digital books, because it's digital and they should have, like, a million copies. It's weird to me that digital books are regulated the same way as physical books, with x number of copies beholden to the same rules (checked out for two weeks, wait lists, etc.)

library got to buy the book just like everybody else

Yeah, I get it. It's just weird to wait for something that is not physical to arrive.

have u never waited for... love

It's weird to me that digital books are regulated the same way as physical books, with x number of copies beholden to the same rules (checked out for two weeks, wait lists, etc.)

Welcome to the wacky world of copyright

looked for Maurer on Nook yesterday, and there was the 12.99 edition, but there was also a free out of copyright book by him entitled something like 'Language of the Criminal', which I 'bought'.

link?

OK just going to go ahead and comment on the marathon article so if you haven't read it yet you might want to skip this - i thought it was an interesting, entertaining read but was not very satisfying. i wish they had 100 percent nailed the guy on his cheating before writing an article about it. i'm sure he was cheating and it felt like there was a lot of evidence against him but not like one solid devastating beyond-a-doubt piece of proof. it was annoying at the end when he was like "and we never figured out exactly how he was cheating, oh well."

xpost i got it from the Nook store directly through my device so I'm not sure how to link it?

(aaaand nevermind-- though it declares itself to be Maurer's Languages of the Underworld, the guts are actually an Italian language book summarizing the plots of operas).

I'm generally miffed that the library only had x copies of digital books, because it's digital and they should have, like, a million copies.

You wouldn't believe the amounts publishers want to charge for unlimited access. Few libraries can afford it.

n/a -- I was a little annoyed at that, too, but also astonished at how much stonewalling Litton did, even after Singer confronted him. The fact that Singer wasn't able to conclusively pin anything on Litton further emphasized the degree of deception/delusion.

(aaaand nevermind-- though it declares itself to be Maurer's Languages of the Underworld, the guts are actually an Italian language book summarizing the plots of operas).

― Lewis Apparition (Jon Lewis), Tuesday, July 31, 2012 2:30 PM (28 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

hah

yeah i kindof love that the litton article isnt ttly shorn up. whole thing is fascinating tho

creating race results where no race existed is some egomaniacal shit

just started that one, even though I'm about 4 issues behind

people who can't stay on top of their new yorker shit should be banned from this thread imo. put up or shut up.

it's not a race

it's a weekly magazine

isnt the whole point of this thread to alert ppl who can't keep up to interesting new articles?

start your own thread

great responses to my entirely serious post, guys

very prompt and pertinent

don't blame the audience

im with you nick

great jokes everyone

if you have unread back issues of the new yorker around your house, you should be sterilized so that you can never reproduce

then start a sterilization thread

I think I keep up pretty well. By the time a new issue arrives, there might be an unread article or two from the previous issue that I meant to get to, but I've usually already read the ones I was most interested in. So typically, I just move on.

can't believe people don't use their lunch hour to read Malcolm Gladwell articles.

I have him on 'ignore' just like Gopnick.

^^^

who gets an hour for lunch!

plenty of ppl

if you don't get an hour for lunch, you should not be reading the new yorker because you are obv a pleb

ha

my lunch break isnt a set amount of time its just however long it takes to finish three martinis and one new yorker article

i thought it was an interesting, entertaining read but was not very satisfying. i wish they had 100 percent nailed the guy on his cheating before writing an article about it. i'm sure he was cheating and it felt like there was a lot of evidence against him but not like one solid devastating beyond-a-doubt piece of proof. it was annoying at the end when he was like "and we never figured out exactly how he was cheating, oh well.

yeah, i thought the whole thing lacked the distance and insight that would have made it interesting and so it just ended up being a fairly creepy summary of a popular message board thread, which was weird. like it felt like the dude writing the piece was too aggressive or maybe just too involved w/ the whole thing and he didnt really have much to offer except the (disputed) facts? idk i was hoping it would be really cool and instead it just ended w/ a shrug and some accusations

also going back a bit the nussbaum piece on cliffhangers was horrible and made me really miss nancy franklin who at least had the virtue of being idiosyncratic

not that there was any definitive proof but the theory of riding a bike/wearing indistinct clothes over his race gear seemed p otm, that the heart of the article was one of those investigative message board threads was a lol for sure

just ended up being a fairly creepy summary of a popular message board thread, which was weird.

this basically. not that i didn't read it through, i post on a message board too

the writer did call one of the posters a "blogger" tho, lol

man that forensic linguistics piece a couple of weeks back had been nagging at me - interesting read and it seems plausibly sound as a detective technique but as science or something to be treated as science by the courts and presented as such to juries it seems very flimsy, way beyond forensic accounting even which strikes me as too flimsy also at least in a cut and dried guilty/not guilty kind of evidence like fingerprints or dna. anyhow read this again by chance last week and kind of cemented my suspicion: http://www.texasmonthly.com/cms/printthis.php?file=feature2.php&issue=2010-05-01

you guys