Bringing them back could raise some interesting questions on how the behavior of animals are inherited from generation to generation. Will the passenger pigeons act like their ancestors or will they take on different behavior?
Then drive the first 50 miles and ride a bike for the last 10. Hopefully it is possible to find a parking lot somewhere in a reasonable distance where you can also stash a bike. Another alternative would be to consider moving closer to work or changing job to something closer to home.
8.2% apparently just like having sex with people of the same sex. Clearly, they're not gay.
Cause they don't identify with being gay.
Cause it's all about identifying.
That is not what your quote is saying. It is saying that 8.2% of the population has at some point in their life experimented with same-sex sex. It does not say if they liked it nor if it was more than once. It is like going to Church a few times is not the same as being a Christian.
The problem with overly simplistic examples, like yours, is that they don't cover the reasons people need and should be advertizing.
GP asked if there was any documentation on how much advertising costs the consumer. I gave numbers for super markets in Denmark. I intentionally did not consider if I thought that the price was reasonable or not, just like you did not consider that advertizing is in essence large scale manipulation of the citizens, funded by the very same citizens.
In Denmark it is possible to say no to getting advertisements in your mailbox. I think some 25% of Danish households (including my own) use that option. And, yeah, if do your groceries at a super market that does advertising (and who does not?), you pay for it, even if you do not get them.
Do you think that money just vanishes into thin air?
Where did I suggest that? For the record, I know full well that the money spent on advertising funds an entire industry of professional manipulators, printers, layouters, transport workers etc.
I know that Slashdot (and in particular the European contingent) isn't exactly a bastion of economic genius, but how exactly do you think jobs come from in the first place?
Huh? Are you suggesting that all jobs come from advertising? Or just the jobs in the super markets? Or did you accidentally reply to this post instead of another one?
I cannot answer for GP, but in Denmark this article (Danish, sorry) state that the super market chains use approximately 210 million Euro per year on dead-tree advertising alone (that is 40 Euro per Dane per year). On top of that, producers spend 600 million Euro per year to subsidize dead-tree advertising (some 115 Euro per year). For a family of four, that's an extra cost of 620 Euro per year for dead-tree advertising on goods from super markets alone. Add to that TV commercials and internet commercials. About 5 years ago, there was a survey (can't find a link) that stated that approximately 25% of what Danes paid for groceries were used to pay for advertising.
There are also certain areas where budget shouldn't matter: Writing. Dialogue. Acting. Etc.
Seriously? Writing and dialogue does not need any budget? Getting both right requires a great deal of time and work, which, incidentally is equivalent with money.
And have you seen what have happened? Why since the 1950s, women have entered the job market, contraceptives are freely available, abortion has been legalized, pornography has been legalized, and the blacks have gained civil rights all over the US! I would not be surprised if many of the scare-moralizing people warning of the dangers of rock'n'roll would be appalled.
They had the same period of time to develop guns the spanish did. They did not. Therefore...
No, they did not. Europe was settled by modern humans 30.000 years ago. Latin America was settled 15.000 years ago. So, the Spanish had a lot longer to settle in and develop. On top of that, Spain could draw from the advances made in Europe, Asia and Africa, a much larger, more populated and more diverse area than the Americas.
Last documentary I saw on the subject of neanderthal DNA suggested that they had only come to find the neanderthal DNA by pasting different strands together from various individuals. The likelihood of serious genetic defects must be quite high. If this is so, the child may not live, or even if it does, it could very well be stricken with serious genetic illnesses, making it as useful as a source of information as a child with Down Syndrome would be as a source of information on modern humans. Or did I miss something?
And then there are the implications in the form of human rights for the child. Neanderthals were quite clearly both sentient and sapient, so the child should have the same basic rights as the rest of us. There is a whole ethical mine-field here.
I think it is more a question of political opportunity. It is much easier to play the "tough on crime", "think of the children" or "morality" cards than it is to explain and consider the very complex real world problems with the public. "Harsher punishments reduce crime and make our streets safer" is easy and will cause a lot of people to nod. Discussing the actual background for crime (be it poverty or lead) and how to actually reduce it is much more complex, and tend to cost more. When you have a predominantly Muslim population, opportunistic politicians will tend to play on conservative Muslim virtues (like politicians play on Christian values in Christian countries), and, well, in the political day to day trying to keep the population docile, they will use whatever is at their disposal.
That makes a lot of sense. I was unaware that the publishers only get about 40% of the cover price - I figured it to be somewhat higher - but it does make Apple taking 30% seem like quite the bargain for publishers.
And one could add that you are always sure that your entire "printing run" will be sold. Of the three points, you mentioned, I would hazard the guess that the shelf cost is likely to be the largest. I do not have any hard numbers on anything, just an estimate that may actually be more of a guesstimate.
I'm not sure 30% of the sales price is that extreme when comparing to a brick and mortar shop and a distributor network (I'm unsure of actual price examples, does anyone know?). In particular because some of the shops are readily available on the supported devices. This, naturally, gives Apple and Google significant advantages on the smartphone and tablet app markets, even if Android/Google allows users to connect to other app shops.
I do, however, agree that there are a number of anti-competitive practices that hamper adoption of ebooks. One issue is the whole DRM mess that does little to protect the publishers from users sharing books online (e.g. piracy), but does make it much more difficult for newcomers to open an eshop to sell ebooks. Some authors hope that the current courtroom drama between Amazon and a number of publishers (over price fixing with Apple) will force the publishers into dropping DRM on ebooks.
[snip] the new middle men who don't even to pretend to add value. With the dawn of ebooks, prices were supposed to drop tremendously. There's no more printing costs and no more brick and mortar store we have to support.
What Amazon, Apple and others have is to add is the marketplace. Running an eshop costs money, in particular if you are a smallish player and want to sell in multiple countries, where you have to comply with national law and tax. Even though the shops may no longer be brick and mortar, they still have bills to pay, and still need to make money, so there is a markup there alone. Add to that the simple fact that Amazon is a very large player on both the ebook and paper book market, in practice close to a monopoly and a monopsony, many publishers may also be quite reluctant to challenge them. On a side note, the price of printing is rather low, compared to the price of making the book itself.
In particular, about 80-90% of the cover price of a book has nothing to do with the paper and ink object you buy in a shop; indeed, using current production standards, ebook production requires nearly as much work as paper book production. (Paper and ink are dirt cheap; proofreaders and marketing teams aren't.)
The author of said post does not provide numbers to back up his claim, but he is a working author with quite a lot of insight into the publishing business. Naturally, the ratio between production cost and printing change with the number of books being printed. But, given that the printing price is quite low, compared to all the other work going into a book, the actual effect is not that big.
Slashdot Mirror
I hope she gets fired from life.
I really wanted to keep out of this shitstorm, but seriously mods ... how the hell can you call crap like that 'Insightful'?
The service providers are not solely to blame. Smartphone manufacturers have consistently been using worse and worse antennas over the last few years.
Bringing them back could raise some interesting questions on how the behavior of animals are inherited from generation to generation. Will the passenger pigeons act like their ancestors or will they take on different behavior?
Then drive the first 50 miles and ride a bike for the last 10. Hopefully it is possible to find a parking lot somewhere in a reasonable distance where you can also stash a bike. Another alternative would be to consider moving closer to work or changing job to something closer to home.
8.2% apparently just like having sex with people of the same sex. Clearly, they're not gay. Cause they don't identify with being gay. Cause it's all about identifying.
That is not what your quote is saying. It is saying that 8.2% of the population has at some point in their life experimented with same-sex sex. It does not say if they liked it nor if it was more than once. It is like going to Church a few times is not the same as being a Christian.
Tiananmen Square is bothering them. If it did not, they would not be trying to keep it quiet.
The problem with overly simplistic examples, like yours, is that they don't cover the reasons people need and should be advertizing.
GP asked if there was any documentation on how much advertising costs the consumer. I gave numbers for super markets in Denmark. I intentionally did not consider if I thought that the price was reasonable or not, just like you did not consider that advertizing is in essence large scale manipulation of the citizens, funded by the very same citizens.
In Denmark it is possible to say no to getting advertisements in your mailbox. I think some 25% of Danish households (including my own) use that option. And, yeah, if do your groceries at a super market that does advertising (and who does not?), you pay for it, even if you do not get them.
Do you think that money just vanishes into thin air?
Where did I suggest that? For the record, I know full well that the money spent on advertising funds an entire industry of professional manipulators, printers, layouters, transport workers etc.
I know that Slashdot (and in particular the European contingent) isn't exactly a bastion of economic genius, but how exactly do you think jobs come from in the first place?
Huh? Are you suggesting that all jobs come from advertising? Or just the jobs in the super markets? Or did you accidentally reply to this post instead of another one?
I cannot answer for GP, but in Denmark this article (Danish, sorry) state that the super market chains use approximately 210 million Euro per year on dead-tree advertising alone (that is 40 Euro per Dane per year). On top of that, producers spend 600 million Euro per year to subsidize dead-tree advertising (some 115 Euro per year). For a family of four, that's an extra cost of 620 Euro per year for dead-tree advertising on goods from super markets alone. Add to that TV commercials and internet commercials. About 5 years ago, there was a survey (can't find a link) that stated that approximately 25% of what Danes paid for groceries were used to pay for advertising.
There are also certain areas where budget shouldn't matter: Writing. Dialogue. Acting. Etc.
Seriously? Writing and dialogue does not need any budget? Getting both right requires a great deal of time and work, which, incidentally is equivalent with money.
Fifty years ago rock 'n roll music.
And have you seen what have happened? Why since the 1950s, women have entered the job market, contraceptives are freely available, abortion has been legalized, pornography has been legalized, and the blacks have gained civil rights all over the US! I would not be surprised if many of the scare-moralizing people warning of the dangers of rock'n'roll would be appalled.
Your honor, I swear that his brown bag looked like a gun in the dark ...
That is a good way to get an aching neck. When working with a screen, the top of the screen should be slightly below your eyes.
The real problem is the inconsistency.
That, and hormones.
They had the same period of time to develop guns the spanish did. They did not. Therefore...
No, they did not. Europe was settled by modern humans 30.000 years ago. Latin America was settled 15.000 years ago. So, the Spanish had a lot longer to settle in and develop. On top of that, Spain could draw from the advances made in Europe, Asia and Africa, a much larger, more populated and more diverse area than the Americas.
Last documentary I saw on the subject of neanderthal DNA suggested that they had only come to find the neanderthal DNA by pasting different strands together from various individuals. The likelihood of serious genetic defects must be quite high. If this is so, the child may not live, or even if it does, it could very well be stricken with serious genetic illnesses, making it as useful as a source of information as a child with Down Syndrome would be as a source of information on modern humans. Or did I miss something?
And then there are the implications in the form of human rights for the child. Neanderthals were quite clearly both sentient and sapient, so the child should have the same basic rights as the rest of us. There is a whole ethical mine-field here.
I think it is more a question of political opportunity. It is much easier to play the "tough on crime", "think of the children" or "morality" cards than it is to explain and consider the very complex real world problems with the public. "Harsher punishments reduce crime and make our streets safer" is easy and will cause a lot of people to nod. Discussing the actual background for crime (be it poverty or lead) and how to actually reduce it is much more complex, and tend to cost more. When you have a predominantly Muslim population, opportunistic politicians will tend to play on conservative Muslim virtues (like politicians play on Christian values in Christian countries), and, well, in the political day to day trying to keep the population docile, they will use whatever is at their disposal.
That makes a lot of sense. I was unaware that the publishers only get about 40% of the cover price - I figured it to be somewhat higher - but it does make Apple taking 30% seem like quite the bargain for publishers.
I bike to work each day (25 minutes each way) and it helps me keep a constant and reasonably low weight.
According to my grandfather, magnifying lenses are very tiresome to use to read more than a few paragraphs.
And one could add that you are always sure that your entire "printing run" will be sold. Of the three points, you mentioned, I would hazard the guess that the shelf cost is likely to be the largest. I do not have any hard numbers on anything, just an estimate that may actually be more of a guesstimate.
I'm not sure 30% of the sales price is that extreme when comparing to a brick and mortar shop and a distributor network (I'm unsure of actual price examples, does anyone know?). In particular because some of the shops are readily available on the supported devices. This, naturally, gives Apple and Google significant advantages on the smartphone and tablet app markets, even if Android/Google allows users to connect to other app shops.
I do, however, agree that there are a number of anti-competitive practices that hamper adoption of ebooks. One issue is the whole DRM mess that does little to protect the publishers from users sharing books online (e.g. piracy), but does make it much more difficult for newcomers to open an eshop to sell ebooks. Some authors hope that the current courtroom drama between Amazon and a number of publishers (over price fixing with Apple) will force the publishers into dropping DRM on ebooks.
[snip] the new middle men who don't even to pretend to add value. With the dawn of ebooks, prices were supposed to drop tremendously. There's no more printing costs and no more brick and mortar store we have to support.
What Amazon, Apple and others have is to add is the marketplace. Running an eshop costs money, in particular if you are a smallish player and want to sell in multiple countries, where you have to comply with national law and tax. Even though the shops may no longer be brick and mortar, they still have bills to pay, and still need to make money, so there is a markup there alone. Add to that the simple fact that Amazon is a very large player on both the ebook and paper book market, in practice close to a monopoly and a monopsony, many publishers may also be quite reluctant to challenge them. On a side note, the price of printing is rather low, compared to the price of making the book itself.
Source
In particular, about 80-90% of the cover price of a book has nothing to do with the paper and ink object you buy in a shop; indeed, using current production standards, ebook production requires nearly as much work as paper book production. (Paper and ink are dirt cheap; proofreaders and marketing teams aren't.)
The author of said post does not provide numbers to back up his claim, but he is a working author with quite a lot of insight into the publishing business. Naturally, the ratio between production cost and printing change with the number of books being printed. But, given that the printing price is quite low, compared to all the other work going into a book, the actual effect is not that big.