sorry but you applied the concept of "supply and demand" to two different things.
There is the supply and demand of actual books, whether paper or electronic.
However, books are entertainment and in the entertainment biz, the big demand is for a supply of "newness."
We pay more for brand-new titles than for stuff that's not quite so new anymore.
Why does it cost more to see a first-run movie at the theater than it does to see it at the dollar theater 3 months later?
It's the same exact film I'm watching.
Why does it cost more to buy a dvd or game the first day it is released than it does to buy the same dvd or game 6 months later?
Asking questions like that help you answer questions about the cost of entertainment thingamajigs.
E-books should still not be more expensive than the paper-back. Why is this so hard to fathom?
It's probably the same reason people don't fathom how economics actually works.(I'm snarking at you now).
A free market means a seller can set a price and buyers can choose to buy or not.
Of course, it's a lot more complicated than that because publishers don't sell paper books to readers; they sell them to distributors.
When publishers are able to sell directly to readers, then they think they can cut out that middle man of the distributor and reap all those profits. But to the reader, now I have to go each separate publisher to find books and it makes marketing really, really hard. But the publishers hold on the copyright makes them think they have something more valuable than it 'really' is.
The real value is determined by sales in the free market, or in the distributor market.
They are cheaper to "copy and distribute." They are not any cheaper to "write and edit."
I'll give you two guesses which pair above drives the vast majority of the book's price. Hint: it's not "copy and distribute."
It is exactly the same issue in restaurants. You are paying for the food, but the preparation and serving and cleanup is what costs money. Food is the cheapest cost in a restaurant. Printing is a standard same-cost operation now. Editing and marketing are not.
Many modern cars have no spare tire so I assume they have no Crowbar 1.0 either. It saves weight and you don't want n00bs trying to change a car tire, especially on the side of a road.
Seems to me if the developers are over-writing the source code, the problem is not the difference between Agile and Waterfall. Sounds to me like the development shop doesn't know how to develop period and is blaming the development methodology instead of poor in-house processes.
It is possible to mess up source code trees when doing Waterfall projects, also. I know that for a fact.
Exactly. If scores are missing, it cannot be because of lots of different teachers making changes. Their changes would be just as random as the student scores should be. For the results to end up the way they are, it has to be done in one spot, probably by some algorithm, perhaps as well-written as the web site;-)
Seems to me if the missing scores are proof of cheating, they cannot be proof of widespread cheating, i.e. cheating done by different people or orgs in different places. If that sort of cheating were happening, the scores would be more randomly distributed.
I think the missing scores are proof of some sort of algorithm, either intentional cheating or just regular scoring to a curve.
I agree. If there are missing points, then it is being done by an algorithm, not by hand at each school.
And if the programming was so bad it was easy to get all that stuff, the grade-score changes were probably done by another poorly written program.
Who is in charge of 'society' or 'government' or 'culture?"
All of us. Yet no one actually thinks that way. Jobs was personally responsible for both the design AND success of the iShtuff.
That's about as accurate as saying Hitler was personally responsible for the Holocaust and WWII.
That _is_ what people say and that's one reason we have yet to learn the correct lessons of history.
If you don't buy a lottery ticket, you don't have a chance of winning. That's their 'reasoning.'
Of course, slashdaughters know buying a lottery ticket does not increase your chances of winning. I have personal experience with this winning $20 twice never buying a ticket. (Realtors and and other salesfolk give them out in mailings).
But lotteries are big money-makers. And so apparently, are phishing schemes.
Actually, there are two different populations of phish messages going around now. One of them surprisingly enough is full of misspellings and odd grammar in a tale about a Nigerian prince. If folks click on that, the senders know they have a live one.
But the other phishing schemes are subtle. I think reasonably intelligent folks who skim emails (instead of read them), especially on a tiny smart-phone/blackberry screen, are just liable to click to someplace nasty. After all, ain't no one 100% right 100% of the time.
I worked for The Seattle Foundation for a while (a while ago) and they serve as sort-of an intermediary between people wanting to donate and non-profits seeking funding. Donors vastly prefer to fund capital acquisitions over operating costs - it's just sexier and feels cooler to people who think in terms of growing things (money, power) by default. "Hey, I got them this new truck," sounds better than "I paid for gas and an oil change for this old truck they've had for a decade." You will find donors who believe in a cause and fund both, but they also want to have the freedom to say no and not be taken for granted.
I have to wonder if some of this is the changing values of our population and culture.
That's the same problem we have in government with keeping stuff working. Everyone wants a new bridge or aircraft carrier named after them, but no one wants to fund the million bucks a year to keep the bridge or aircraft carrier painted. Of course, it's the same in the life of an individual. We will brag to each other about buying a new car or a new house, but we won't brag to each other about buying a new transmission or a new water heater for an already-existing 'used' car or house.
disqualifying someone just because they failed to win too many times is low
That's not why he was disqualified. He was disqualified because he failed to advance to the next level and then jumped over the state border to try again with the same project in another state. Without this rule, you could have kids entering a dozen different state competitions with the same project, just hoping to get the right set of judges to advance you.
I'm trying to understand the difference between that and marketing your own commercial product in different places and getting different results.I don't consider that cheating. In the business world it is called trying.
I think the worst difference between the music industry and the idiot editors is no one at all in the music industry was saying "People aren't listening to music anymore."
Seems to me everyone in the publishing business was saying "People aren't reading anymore" when what they meant to say was people aren't reading newspapers and magazines and books anymore. Instead, they were reading (and writing) those billions of web pages the clueless editors and publishers were whining about.
Another big difference is that the music industry doesn't act like it is more important than it warrants. They know they are selling top 40 trash.As an industry, we let yahoos from the New York Times make ridiculous claims about the importance of reading. Uhhhhhhh, the number one top selling mags/newspapers of all time have _always_ been rags like the National Enquirer and News of the World.
The publishing biz makes all of its money on Top 40 trash. If they talked about it realistically instead of talking academics using absurd assumptions, then perhaps their business wouldn't self-destruct. If you want to talk about business itself, start with the balance sheet and don't waste time lauding fancy literature that wasn't even popular in its own day (such as Moby Dick).
Boeing buys a big chunk of the 777's wing from China. The wife of one of the design engineers was appalled that her husband's group was instructed to send plans for the ENTIRE aircraft to the manufacturer, supposedly to ensure that there wouldn't be any misunderstandings that would cause things not to fit. I'm sure since then Boeing has been complaining about IP theft in the Chinese aircraft industry.
Perhaps it was for IP theft.
Or maybe it was to prevent a big Airbus disaster where the wiring harnesses built off-site did not fit. Ever.
We had all those nukes during the Korean war and they didn't help (they weren't used).
We had all those nukes during the Viet Nam war and they didn't help (they weren't used).
We had all those nukes during Desert Storm and they didn't help (they weren't used). We won that one tho.
We had all those nukes during the Afghanistan war and they didn't help (they weren't used). Russia had nukes when they fought there also.
We had all those nukes during the most recent Iraq war and they didn't help (they weren't used).
Having nuclear weapons you refuse to use, or cannot use because 'winning' is something different than not losing, is like having books on a shelf that you cannot read. The look marvelous.
If Paypal won't pay the kid for bugs in its system, I bet someone else will.
Seems to me that's the entire reason for having a bounty program in the first place.
Then they dump it because the legal hassle of paying an under-age worker is too difficult.
Way to strategize.
If this has a face recognition system app built into it. See your wife, it brings up anniversaries, birthdays etc.. See a congressman, it brings up a list of all the corporations/organizations that fund him and a list of his voting record. See a random stranger, bring up criminal records if any, etc..
See, that's the problem, That's the way it _would_ work.
What we citizens need is if we see a Congressman, it brings up his criminal record and when we see a random stranger, it brings up the corporations funding him, saving you from salesmen and other overly-friendly types.
Slashdot Mirror
sorry but you applied the concept of "supply and demand" to two different things.
There is the supply and demand of actual books, whether paper or electronic.
However, books are entertainment and in the entertainment biz, the big demand is for a supply of "newness."
We pay more for brand-new titles than for stuff that's not quite so new anymore.
Why does it cost more to see a first-run movie at the theater than it does to see it at the dollar theater 3 months later?
It's the same exact film I'm watching.
Why does it cost more to buy a dvd or game the first day it is released than it does to buy the same dvd or game 6 months later?
Asking questions like that help you answer questions about the cost of entertainment thingamajigs.
E-books should still not be more expensive than the paper-back. Why is this so hard to fathom?
It's probably the same reason people don't fathom how economics actually works.(I'm snarking at you now).
A free market means a seller can set a price and buyers can choose to buy or not.
Of course, it's a lot more complicated than that because publishers don't sell paper books to readers; they sell them to distributors.
When publishers are able to sell directly to readers, then they think they can cut out that middle man of the distributor and reap all those profits. But to the reader, now I have to go each separate publisher to find books and it makes marketing really, really hard. But the publishers hold on the copyright makes them think they have something more valuable than it 'really' is.
The real value is determined by sales in the free market, or in the distributor market.
They are cheaper to "copy and distribute." They are not any cheaper to "write and edit."
I'll give you two guesses which pair above drives the vast majority of the book's price. Hint: it's not "copy and distribute."
It is exactly the same issue in restaurants. You are paying for the food, but the preparation and serving and cleanup is what costs money. Food is the cheapest cost in a restaurant. Printing is a standard same-cost operation now. Editing and marketing are not.
If corporations are writing the laws, they might as well be enforcing them too ;-)
I'll bet that Chinese universal unlocker was built using stolen USA plans ;-)
Many modern cars have no spare tire so I assume they have no Crowbar 1.0 either. It saves weight and you don't want n00bs trying to change a car tire, especially on the side of a road.
Seems to me if the developers are over-writing the source code, the problem is not the difference between Agile and Waterfall. Sounds to me like the development shop doesn't know how to develop period and is blaming the development methodology instead of poor in-house processes.
It is possible to mess up source code trees when doing Waterfall projects, also. I know that for a fact.
Exactly. If scores are missing, it cannot be because of lots of different teachers making changes. Their changes would be just as random as the student scores should be. For the results to end up the way they are, it has to be done in one spot, probably by some algorithm, perhaps as well-written as the web site ;-)
Seems to me if the missing scores are proof of cheating, they cannot be proof of widespread cheating, i.e. cheating done by different people or orgs in different places. If that sort of cheating were happening, the scores would be more randomly distributed.
I think the missing scores are proof of some sort of algorithm, either intentional cheating or just regular scoring to a curve.
5. I want a recount. With paper, that is possible.
I agree. If there are missing points, then it is being done by an algorithm, not by hand at each school.
And if the programming was so bad it was easy to get all that stuff, the grade-score changes were probably done by another poorly written program.
Who is in charge of 'society' or 'government' or 'culture?"
All of us. Yet no one actually thinks that way. Jobs was personally responsible for both the design AND success of the iShtuff.
That's about as accurate as saying Hitler was personally responsible for the Holocaust and WWII.
That _is_ what people say and that's one reason we have yet to learn the correct lessons of history.
If you don't buy a lottery ticket, you don't have a chance of winning. That's their 'reasoning.'
Of course, slashdaughters know buying a lottery ticket does not increase your chances of winning. I have personal experience with this winning $20 twice never buying a ticket. (Realtors and and other salesfolk give them out in mailings).
But lotteries are big money-makers. And so apparently, are phishing schemes.
Actually, there are two different populations of phish messages going around now. One of them surprisingly enough is full of misspellings and odd grammar in a tale about a Nigerian prince. If folks click on that, the senders know they have a live one.
But the other phishing schemes are subtle. I think reasonably intelligent folks who skim emails (instead of read them), especially on a tiny smart-phone/blackberry screen, are just liable to click to someplace nasty. After all, ain't no one 100% right 100% of the time.
I worked for The Seattle Foundation for a while (a while ago) and they serve as sort-of an intermediary between people wanting to donate and non-profits seeking funding. Donors vastly prefer to fund capital acquisitions over operating costs - it's just sexier and feels cooler to people who think in terms of growing things (money, power) by default. "Hey, I got them this new truck," sounds better than "I paid for gas and an oil change for this old truck they've had for a decade." You will find donors who believe in a cause and fund both, but they also want to have the freedom to say no and not be taken for granted.
I have to wonder if some of this is the changing values of our population and culture.
That's the same problem we have in government with keeping stuff working. Everyone wants a new bridge or aircraft carrier named after them, but no one wants to fund the million bucks a year to keep the bridge or aircraft carrier painted. Of course, it's the same in the life of an individual. We will brag to each other about buying a new car or a new house, but we won't brag to each other about buying a new transmission or a new water heater for an already-existing 'used' car or house.
Nothing has changed. same old same old
disqualifying someone just because they failed to win too many times is low
That's not why he was disqualified. He was disqualified because he failed to advance to the next level and then jumped over the state border to try again with the same project in another state. Without this rule, you could have kids entering a dozen different state competitions with the same project, just hoping to get the right set of judges to advance you.
I'm trying to understand the difference between that and marketing your own commercial product in different places and getting different results.I don't consider that cheating. In the business world it is called trying.
I think the worst difference between the music industry and the idiot editors is no one at all in the music industry was saying "People aren't listening to music anymore."
Seems to me everyone in the publishing business was saying "People aren't reading anymore" when what they meant to say was people aren't reading newspapers and magazines and books anymore. Instead, they were reading (and writing) those billions of web pages the clueless editors and publishers were whining about.
Another big difference is that the music industry doesn't act like it is more important than it warrants. They know they are selling top 40 trash.As an industry, we let yahoos from the New York Times make ridiculous claims about the importance of reading. Uhhhhhhh, the number one top selling mags/newspapers of all time have _always_ been rags like the National Enquirer and News of the World.
The publishing biz makes all of its money on Top 40 trash. If they talked about it realistically instead of talking academics using absurd assumptions, then perhaps their business wouldn't self-destruct. If you want to talk about business itself, start with the balance sheet and don't waste time lauding fancy literature that wasn't even popular in its own day (such as Moby Dick).
Boeing buys a big chunk of the 777's wing from China. The wife of one of the design engineers was appalled that her husband's group was instructed to send plans for the ENTIRE aircraft to the manufacturer, supposedly to ensure that there wouldn't be any misunderstandings that would cause things not to fit. I'm sure since then Boeing has been complaining about IP theft in the Chinese aircraft industry.
Perhaps it was for IP theft.
Or maybe it was to prevent a big Airbus disaster where the wiring harnesses built off-site did not fit. Ever.
We had all those nukes during the Korean war and they didn't help (they weren't used).
We had all those nukes during the Viet Nam war and they didn't help (they weren't used).
We had all those nukes during Desert Storm and they didn't help (they weren't used). We won that one tho.
We had all those nukes during the Afghanistan war and they didn't help (they weren't used). Russia had nukes when they fought there also.
We had all those nukes during the most recent Iraq war and they didn't help (they weren't used).
Having nuclear weapons you refuse to use, or cannot use because 'winning' is something different than not losing, is like having books on a shelf that you cannot read. The look marvelous.
Russia maintains a million foot soldiers on its Chinese border.
To anyone who isn't Chinese, that sounds like a big army.
If Paypal won't pay the kid for bugs in its system, I bet someone else will.
Seems to me that's the entire reason for having a bounty program in the first place.
Then they dump it because the legal hassle of paying an under-age worker is too difficult.
Way to strategize.
I think Jeff Bezos at Amazon is the reason for all the hatred.
If this has a face recognition system app built into it. See your wife, it brings up anniversaries, birthdays etc.. See a congressman, it brings up a list of all the corporations/organizations that fund him and a list of his voting record. See a random stranger, bring up criminal records if any, etc..
See, that's the problem, That's the way it _would_ work.
What we citizens need is if we see a Congressman, it brings up his criminal record and when we see a random stranger, it brings up the corporations funding him, saving you from salesmen and other overly-friendly types.
Well now that the secret's out, maybe Congress will cancel these programs.
Maybe not.