What I liked about Wrox was that they gave estimated numbers up front, and also gave the option to take a flat fee per-page. (Incidentally, Wrox said they wouldn't bother doing the book unless they thought it would sell 15K copies.)
Keep in mind that the "brand name" of a publisher is important, and will play a role in how it sells. Some folks will automatically buy a book on topic X if it's from publisher Y.
I co-authored a book for Wrox. It was my first book, and was offered 4% royalties, after the publisher get its take. It works out to about $1.00 a book. Is this typical? I don't know. Part of my motivation was to get the experience, to get my name in print. I think for an unknown that's OK; as you get more work in print, you can get better.
It is a lot of work, and the pay/hour may not be what you woudld accept in a "real" job, but so far I've made $15K for about 3 months work, and most of that was evenings and weekends (I kept my day job!). Plus it's been translated into Korean and Chinese, which is a kick.
I wrote some chapters for other books, but delays and moving technology led to the books being canceled. I got paid, but...
Some tips, for what it's worth:
Try not to write about stuff you don't really know. You will spend too much time getting up to speed.
If you are working with a team of authors, make sure they are all fully commited and qualified. I worked on a book that was ultimately canceled, because some authors took too much time resolving code issues.
Be clear on what you get paid if the book is canceled.
This is a lightly written but mind-bendingly deep book. When you realize you have been smooth talked into abandoning the last fifty years of AI research and development along with the majority of current thinking on ALife you know the Grand philosophy has gotten into your blood.
Hmm, I think not. There's nothing going on with Grand's approach that is alien to recent AI/AL research. Check out D. Hofstadter or S. Kauffman, for example.
Wow. Sounds almost exactly how IE is designed: a collection of scriptable objects. Of course, you can use any scripting language that understands COM, not just ECMAscript. Interesting coincidence.
I read that the upcoming gcc 3.0 will have an "application binary interface", that is a more stable and compatible binary format. If they don't change the signature of the functions in the libraries all the time, this should solve this problem very well.
That's not allowed. MSFT has been doing this for some time with COM, and if MSFT does it, it must be evil.
Good points there. I am a libertarian, but I think that some ideas were slightly tilted to help bolster the argument. I do think the article was a good one, in so much as it made me think, and it wasn't a lopsided rant. But it may fail to persuade people who aren't already inclined to follow a certain point of view.
It sounds, though, as if one newspaper can sign a contract, publish the work, and be obligated to pay the author, but a second newspaper can, the next day, simply reprint the article, and (not having signed a contract) not owe anybody anything. The reason contracts and the like arise is *because* of the enforcement of IP laws. It sounds odd to suggest that removing any *requirement* to form a contract would *encourage* people to form contracts.
It seems that, when an oil company trots out a scientist to support its side, that scientist has been "bought off." But when the anti-business side trots out a scientist, that scientist is 100% unbiased.
And what the fsck is up with the additional postage required for *square* envelopes? They confuse the machines, so actual *humans* must touch the mail! Oh no, better charge more.
It might be nice if certain appliances could learn your habits and start to forecast what you want. Like preheat the oven at 6:45pm, since you always eat around that time. Of course, what I really want is somethat that scans TV listings and tells me when something interesting is going to be on. Or something that records off the radio, but only archives music it thinks I'll like.
Games. MS-DOS supported more games. People buying home PCs went for the machines that supported the most games. Plus, PCs running MSFT stuff were cheaper than Apple hardware (due to Apple holding the monopoly and gouging the public).
This familiarity with MSFT influenced future choices. The network effect took hold, and MSFT rose to the top.
The point of DCOM on other pltforms was not that a COM binary would run anywhere, but that code could use DCOM to interact with a COM object on a across platforms. You would still have to write the Unix code to expose the DCOM interface.
I was originally a EE major, having been stoked by Kidder's "Soul of a New Machine." But the math/physiscs was too much for me. I had taken an intro to CS course, and software just looked so much cooler, so I switched to CS. No regrets.
If you really want to understand computer science, go for CS. If you just want some bullshit degree that gets you a fab job, do CIS.
So, let's see... any langauge that requires the pre-existence of some OS feature isn't a real language, by the implied tautology. That seems to rule out everything but machine code.
That is truly sad. I'm not sure how Nader's oppressive gov't is any better than any other oppressive gov't. Perhaps the unqualified success of Communism and Socialism over the 20th century is guiding your choice?
Oh were it that simlpe! True, not *every* boss or coworker is a dope, but there are *enough* people playing without a full deck that Dilbert really does reflect a good portion of workplace reality.
If Picasso's work was not for "[c]ommunication where there were no words to communicate a given idea", then what was it for? Is that not arguably one of the things art is for?
And aren't the medieval tapestries art?
BTW, it is most certainly questionably that Picasso's work was the most revolutionary ever.
"Your argument also overlooked religion. I for one do not belive in gambling for religious reasons, and I would consider restricting your freedom to gambol because it offends my religion. I do not know how I would accually vote on this issue if it came up, but don't ignore it."
And I for one do not believe in restricting freedoms becasue it offends *my* religion. And *my* religion can beat up *your* religion! So there. (Really: Just what religion is it that says that some people may be controled by other people?)
Slashdot Mirror
What I liked about Wrox was that they gave estimated numbers up front, and also gave the option to take a flat fee per-page. (Incidentally, Wrox said they wouldn't bother doing the book unless they thought it would sell 15K copies.)
Keep in mind that the "brand name" of a publisher is important, and will play a role in how it sells. Some folks will automatically buy a book on topic X if it's from publisher Y.
It is a lot of work, and the pay/hour may not be what you woudld accept in a "real" job, but so far I've made $15K for about 3 months work, and most of that was evenings and weekends (I kept my day job!). Plus it's been translated into Korean and Chinese, which is a kick.
I wrote some chapters for other books, but delays and moving technology led to the books being canceled. I got paid, but ...
Some tips, for what it's worth:
Hmm, I think not. There's nothing going on with Grand's approach that is alien to recent AI/AL research. Check out D. Hofstadter or S. Kauffman, for example.
This is all too true. And some of the things that get pulled from people's butts are just spooky.
Wow. Sounds almost exactly how IE is designed: a collection of scriptable objects. Of course, you can use any scripting language that understands COM, not just ECMAscript. Interesting coincidence.
That's not allowed. MSFT has been doing this for some time with COM, and if MSFT does it, it must be evil.
That is, quite simply, false.
Good points there. I am a libertarian, but I think that some ideas were slightly tilted to help bolster the argument. I do think the article was a good one, in so much as it made me think, and it wasn't a lopsided rant. But it may fail to persuade people who aren't already inclined to follow a certain point of view.
James
It seems that, when an oil company trots out a scientist to support its side, that scientist has been "bought off." But when the anti-business side trots out a scientist, that scientist is 100% unbiased.
James
"But I told you not to call me!"
"Oh, sorry, must have a memory problem."
click
because I read about Information Technology everyday. Boy, such a fuss ...
It might be nice if certain appliances could learn your habits and start to forecast what you want. Like preheat the oven at 6:45pm, since you always eat around that time. Of course, what I really want is somethat that scans TV listings and tells me when something interesting is going to be on. Or something that records off the radio, but only archives music it thinks I'll like.
This familiarity with MSFT influenced future choices. The network effect took hold, and MSFT rose to the top.
.. put every MSFT employee under house arrest, and block Internet access. That would really put these evil devils in their place!
The point of DCOM on other pltforms was not that a COM binary would run anywhere, but that code could use DCOM to interact with a COM object on a across platforms. You would still have to write the Unix code to expose the DCOM interface.
If you really want to understand computer science, go for CS. If you just want some bullshit degree that gets you a fab job, do CIS.
So, let's see ... any langauge that requires the pre-existence of some OS feature isn't a real language, by the implied tautology. That seems to rule out everything but machine code.
That is truly sad. I'm not sure how Nader's oppressive gov't is any better than any other oppressive gov't. Perhaps the unqualified success of Communism and Socialism over the 20th century is guiding your choice?
Oh were it that simlpe! True, not *every* boss or coworker is a dope, but there are *enough* people playing without a full deck that Dilbert really does reflect a good portion of workplace reality.
James
"We didn't create this world. God did. "
And you are ready to prove this, right?
Thye may also be a little too anti-freedom for some of the less Socialist around here.
And I for one do not believe in restricting freedoms becasue it offends *my* religion. And *my* religion can beat up *your* religion! So there. (Really: Just what religion is it that says that some people may be controled by other people?)