How fast do you think that your brain can scan your monitor and identify all the elements, their exact location and plot trajectories to analize what shots will hit? How fast can you figure the lead time you need for hitting a moving target? The straight "fact" that an AI doesn't even have any time spent on the visual identifying of objects on the screen because it has the raw data before you even get it on the screen is enough. Let alone the straight up l33t math skills that a computer can employ to beat you at any targeting matchup. It knows the elevation and windage needed to hit the target because it is part of the program that is in control of that exact data. How do you think that the computer determines if your shot hits a target, it does the exact same math for every one of your shots that it would use to hit you every time.
The only reason you think a computer can miss is because the AI of past games have built in flaws and limitations so that you can actually get a shot off. Try playing any first person shooter on the highest difficulty and you'll get a taste of the "facts". Then ask yourself why the computer missed you at all if it doesn't have to think about where to aim, since it knows your exact position at all times.
That should have been RE-Playability. as in how many times you can beat the game and still pick it up a month later and be challenged by the new situations.
A lot of AI that is used in games today can come off as cheap since the computer can think and compare much faster than a human player. Imagine fighting an opponent that can react 10X faster than you.
Another way to look at it is if you think that the AI is learning patterns and adjusting for tactics. That's been played out in many genres, the most recent to come to mind is the Stargate SG1 episode where a character must face a situation that adapts to his efforts and becomes impossible to beat since the game can react faster than he can and has a perfect memory.
It's a ballance that game AI must match, playability and difficulty.
From the article: "Cable Communications is coming to subscribers' houses and updating the boxes, but not leaving a USB key" that's a problem right there as they are not getting any copies of the code.
and second: "ProServ is selling USB keys." are they selling the key with the code on it, or are they selling just a USB drive that stores a key that has been created by the code. As in a compiled file? If it's just a standard USB key, then it only has a file on it that gets verified. not the code or utility to distribute keys.
If they gave one person the code, then people would be able to generate keys from that code and copy them to USB devices at will and there would be no discussion about this issue. that's how most GPL code becomes: "free to download somewhere" in peoples minds. it's not stated in the actual GPL but it becomes that way since the people that get a copy of the code usually put it up somewhere for others to just download. Instead of buying a CD or other physical copy, that can be charged for.
It's not really the price that is at issue here, it's about the lack of the code being distributed at all.
Because they just want to use their purchased hardware to get FTA (Free to Air) shows. You know, Free as in Free. RTFA! or even the summary!
And since the operating code on the system is protected under the GPL, then they should be able to get the source. The company made money off software that they did not themselves create in whole. They took the communities efforts and are now charging the public to use that code. This is why the violation of GPL software is a problem.
But it was a type of lie. By assigning credit to a group that did not produce the ad, he is committing a type of slander. Making it seem that that group has a specific oppinion or approves of an ad that they had no knowledge of, and didn't approve.
Same as saying, "John says Jill is a bad person" to people. When John has no idea what you're doing and said no such thing. That not only hurts one person but both. It's like trying to start a fight between two people. Not a thing to be proud of, and an underhanded method of addressing the political scene in my eyes. It's bad enough without his help. Try and make it better, and I'll applaud the effort. Do this and I think he should be fired at a minimum.
People miss the corrilation that maybe bad drivers and those who drive aggressivly tend to want to play games like GTA.
I think people overlook cause and effect relationships like this a lot. It is not less likely that B causes A just because you happened to lable them as such.
That's where it crosses the line into conspiracy to commit. That's what it's there for, to let people have free speech but hold them accountable for what they do. Free speech comes with responsibilities. 1. To protect your own right to free speech you must protect your opponents rights as well. and 2. You are responsible for what you say. People may quote it back to you some day. In court.
Here's the difference between a parents responsibility and society:
1. You would have to be letting your 2 year old watch TV at 8pm at night. In which case any programming not comming from a VCR/DVD/Tivo would be questionable at best.
2. You would have to allow your 2 year old alone in the car with your keys or leave them out where they could be taken and used without your knowledge by your child.
3. Your child would have to be able to open your front door, the car door, and figure out how to start the car and then shift. All serious physical exertions for a 2 year old.
4. Your child would have to be so impressionable that letting her watch Peter Pan taking small children out the upstairs window to "fly" would be a serious risk.
It is your responsibility to ensure that your child knows enough to keep themselves safe in the environment you allow them to be in. That means that if they are likely to copy an act, you do not allow them the opportunity to see it OR you keep their environment such that they can't.
You wouldn't leave matches with your child on the chance they've seen how you strike them. You wouldn't leave your child in the car with the keys in the ignition, running.
This is the boundry in which your responsibility to ensure your childs safety and the general publics need not to be your babysitter exists. People should have the ability to make a cartoon, commercial, or movie and have you make the decision wether your child sees it or not. That's why it was aired late at night. If you are worried that a child will "monkey see monkey do" another child, you don't think they'll copy your actions. I'm pretty sure with a child that you know better than that and have seen first hand that a child will copy it's parents pretty easily.
Now have you taken your child driving in your car? You should be ashamed. Showing that impressionable young one such things.
You control what they see and hear. You should be able to explain to them what they are experiencing. If they cannot understand the explination, they shouldn't have the ability to do those things. That's your responsibility. To not put them in the position where they can try. This is parenting. You wouldn't let a 13 year old girl spend the night at a boyfriends house for this exact reason. They do not know enough to be left to decide what is safe and understand the consequences.
That was in relation to getting the job done. Once we were in the middle of it.
We didn't have enough troops in there to do what they were trying, the generals said so at the time. They also didn't have enough armor, weapons, and leadership comming from the field instead of from the government.
To argue that the time for blame is over when the blame is pointing at your side is childish. The point I made in my first post was trying to draw similarities between owning up for your actions and this governments attempts to avoid doing so.
To say that the arguement for going to war is over is inane. People have lost their lives for our decision to go to war. It's a valid discussion unless you de-value the lives of our troops. Remember in school when you studied history and they said: "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." That was from a writer named George Santayana, he also said: "Only the dead have seen an end to war."
I'll leave the topic of Fox news with this:
Most people have an opinion. Most people try to get others to have that same opinion, as we see on slashdot all the time. The people with an audience usually try to persuade others to have their opinion weather they are conscious of it or not. For an example that's on record, check out the newspaper business. Most newspapers have an editor that tends to skew the articles and topics in a way that they like. In one example in recent admition Rupert Murdoch, said of his News Corp that owns Fox and the New York Post that he tried to shape the agenda in the Iraq war.
That's fine as long as the news outlet doesn't turn around and try to say that they are fair and balanced.
To their credit Fox news does try and have others opinions voiced on their show. They just try to still persuade their viewers to believe what they do. And since they do the editing and have the control, it comes out as biased.
That's the same as other news outlets, they all have an agenda weather they know it or admit to it or not. The only way to avert this from happening would be to have two news teams that are biased in opposite directions cover the same news story and alternate who goes first on each story they cover.
The people that didn't forsee that the war in Iraq could possibly lead to civil war are responsible for not taking any steps at all to prevent it.
and that:
The president and his office should be willing to admit that they are responsible for the easily-anticipated consequences of their actions. But because they don't, apparently he does not understand that "adult" doesn't just mean naughty words; it also means owning up to your actions.
Just watch Fox and you'll see that those arguments are ridiculous.:)
The people who go into these professions have the right to try and do their job as best they can, that includes trying to do things that haven't been done before and that they haven't been trained to do. The right of initiative is what I was referring to.
The goal of these police is to protect the people. That's their job. their right is to try and do it as best they can. Inventing ways to use new tools and ideas to out smart the bad guys. That makes a cop a great asset rather than fodder for the streets.
My comparison was to the courts job in which they restrain the eager innovation with a long sighted view of the possible missuse of the technology and do so with a specific eye tword the letter of the law as well as the intent it was written with. The judge in this case didn't look too far ahead and didn't think of the intent too much either.
A person that helped shape our country, Benjamin Franklin thought "that it is better one hundred guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer."
Probably listening to Voltaire who stood for most things we think makes America great today but can find little proof in the news to show as examples these days.
Two situations where using gps trackers would be ok.
1. Suspected bad guy with a warrant for tracking, just like the warrant required to tap his phone and get his bank records. Limited battery time and or limited data storage onboard for scope requirement of the warrant. Provision in the warrant for realtime or just storage of location.
2. Vehicle evading police. One tag shot at the car to trace it and all the high speed accidents would be avoided. They can fall back and video tape the suspect while other cars block off the area and fence them in. This would meet the probable cause requirement in an emergency to avoid getting a warrant. Limit the tracer to 24hrs battery life sending the live signal and recording the information.
Everybody has rights in a civil society. the rights of the police to try and get the ones who voilate others rights included. It's the judges responsibility to restrain the eagerness of law inforcement to catch people and ballance that need with the requirement of the people to fear an invasion of privacy when they have done nothing wrong.
And for all you people out there with that "If you have nothing to hide you shouldn't be worried." BS... Why don't you just give the police the right to take you outside the country and torture you without trial or explination or representation?
Oh yeah, you did.
preferences on google search results
on
Slashdot's Vastu
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Uh, under preferences. The link just to the right of the text box that says preferences.
Sorry, should have been a hundred dollars per hour. not per editor.
And the discussion I was dismissing was from the posters that state numbers like they know them not as their opinion. I said I DOUBT that something costs such and such. others have been saying that something actually costs such and such without any references or experience.
The main point aside from my own observations was that I would like to see the portion of my money that actually goes to the author as well as the percentages that go to other costs.
They do this in the DMV to show you where your fees go.
I know that it takes a skilled person do do any job well, I also know that once a computer program is written well it can perform tasks much faster and do it with supervision rather than by hand. Typesetting CAN be as easy as Edit -> select all -> Format -> Paperback and it would justify all the pages and take the chapter headings and make a table of contents and all that. Supervision of that process does not take thousands of dollars for every book. The publishers make a lot of PROFIT so there are costs to the publisher and there is my book sale price and they don't even out.
Do some searching online and you'll find the American Association of Publishers states that the typical manufacturing cost for a book was approximately 25 percent. So a 6 dollar paperback costs 1.50 to produce. Then you have shipping and storage and the retail outlet overhead and profit to add to that. These costs do not apply to the new books.
Proofreaders and fact checkers and plot reviewers oh my.
My comment "And editors, seriously, there's a spellcheck on almost all computers" as meant to be to the editors. I still find spelling errors in major works that my e-mail spell check would catch.
Again my point is that I'd like to see the numbers before I go out any buy in to this new electronic format. I love reading, but if the authors aren't getting a decent percentage of the money I pay compared to physical books considering the material and printing and shipping and storage and shelving space are simply not applicable in an electronic book sale, that money should then go to the author since everything else is the same. Publishers could make the same profits off the authors work that they had been making before. The manufacturing and distribution method is cheaper with e-books.
Is the author realizing any of that savings? Where is the money going?
And to all the people out there that are spouting off numbers and guestimates: shut up
Unless you know a number or percentage be quiet.
We all don't know everything on every topic yet we come in here spouting off like we're experts.
My main point is to draw attention to what we actually want to buy. And that's an experience that an author created. If that's a bunch of researchers and the cost is more for lets say an encycleopedia set then fine we can all understand that. If it's a sci-fi novel written by 1 author, don't lecture me about typesetters and editors. That's BS because it's a finite amount of effort and typesetting is now performed by printers and controlled by computers and probably was taken care of when the author wrote the book on his computer. No matter what else happens, the words that were written become digital as soon as possible. it's in everybodies best interest, including the publishers.
And editors, seriously, there's a spellcheck on almost all computers and handing out a couple copies for editors to read really can't cost that much. I'd like to see the numbers but I doubt that it's over a hundred bucks per editor to read a book and make some notes. Hell, I'd doit for free just for the oportunity to read the books.
I'd be very interested to see a pie chart of the percentages from a paperback vs an e-book. Untill I see that or hear that the authors are getting a certain percentage of the sale price, I'll stick to the used book stores all over town. I can get a used paperback for a buck and it makes no difference to me that some of the pages have fingerprints on them or dogeared corners. I am paying for the experience the author created. And the used book store makes a profit.
It all boils down to how much the author is paid per sale.
The only other thing that makes any impact is the money the publishing company spends to promote and distribute the book. Now that we have digital distribution it's got to be less than a buck to add a book to a site and the bandwidth is nothing. The main money is in publicity and most of that is advertising flyers (bus adds, billboards, all the static printed poster stuff) not too many commercials and complex adds like they have for movies and concerts.
How often have you gone out and purchased a book because of a really convincing ad? would you have purchased it if you were just given the synopsis? a clever plot in the genre that you prefer is probably what most people look for in their fiction selection. And for the non fiction the subject is probably 90 percent of the deciding factor.
Best seller lists make themselves. Top reviews are for good books and are free to the publisher (should be, tsk tsk if they're paid for)
So where's the numbers?
Justify to me that my money isn't just stuffing the pockets of people who really didn't create the thing I want. I want the words. I'll pay for the words and make the person who wrote them happy to hopefully write another book I'll buy and the cycle will go on and on.
But if I'm told I have to pay a large amount and buy less books because of it and there pops up another P2P service that I can get the books I want because people like me don't feel bad enough to pay some fat cat then we'll have another napster revolution and in the end some iTunes will come in and set it up right. I wish we could skip the BS part and just have these people realize that the best thing that they could do to get our money is treat us like intelligent people and give us a fair price.
We'll buy the books if we feel the price is fair. otherwise it'll be P2P. Justify the price and show how much is going to the author.
If I can do a Google search and find the patent file I could make one in my basement.:) Back to Free. Once information like this is available it would ba almost impossible to keep propriatary. If I can buy one and take it apart I will have the knowledge.
I hope this is all jumping the gun and they will release it to the public after licensing it to the people.
Or is that two pipe dreams in one post? It works, and we'll get it.
Are you really going to decrypt your document at the threat of breaking this law.
If you fail to decrypt the document you are punished for breaking that law, If you decrypt the document and really have something bad, you are punished much more severely. It's like having a law that prohibits committing suicide. Seriously, if you break that law do you care? If you are a terrorist, do you care if they punish you for not decrypting that document? Or do you care more that they do not get the information?
This law is simply there to get the people that are nowhere near the "Evil" lawbreakers. The general public that has the occasional poker game and bets on the superbowl at work, both illegal things because of similar laws.
So the police with their dash cameras and the tollbooths with their license plate cameras, and the stop light cameras, grocery stoor security cameras, mini mart cameras, department store cameras and even the security cameras that they have in the police station where he was arrested are all ok, but on his private property where he lives and is getting harrassed, he can't use one to show the police what they've done to violate his rights?
yeah, ok. now which way to canada?
PS, in the article the police try and argue what happened at his house, if he warned them about the camera and if he had posted signs about the camera.
now if there's video tape of those events and facts, just review that. no argument. no problem. case closed. I'd like to see if the cops are on film warning motorists that they are on camera every time they get pulled over. now compare.
It can record any song being played on your computer and automatically enters all the tag info while compressing it to MP3 on the fly (or to uncompressed files if your pc is too slow) It'll record anything that windows media player plays because it just replaces the driver for your soundcard that splits the signal in two. One goes to your hard drive as a new mp3 and one streamed out your soundcard.
Simple.
DRM is Dead Restrictive Moneygrubbing It will never work so long as it can be played. And if it can't be played no one will buy it. Logical death.
I call a reporter that later does a story on government corruption and that call is logged in a government database controlled by the very people who have the most motivation to abuse it without our knowledge.
This is what we were so afraid of when we were fighting communism, that an invasive government idea would infest our basic rights to freedoms and liberties assured us in the constitution.
A quote by our founding fathers:
"Those who trade security for liberty deserve neither." BF
Slashdot Mirror
How fast do you think that your brain can scan your monitor and identify all the elements, their exact location and plot trajectories to analize what shots will hit? How fast can you figure the lead time you need for hitting a moving target? The straight "fact" that an AI doesn't even have any time spent on the visual identifying of objects on the screen because it has the raw data before you even get it on the screen is enough. Let alone the straight up l33t math skills that a computer can employ to beat you at any targeting matchup. It knows the elevation and windage needed to hit the target because it is part of the program that is in control of that exact data. How do you think that the computer determines if your shot hits a target, it does the exact same math for every one of your shots that it would use to hit you every time.
The only reason you think a computer can miss is because the AI of past games have built in flaws and limitations so that you can actually get a shot off. Try playing any first person shooter on the highest difficulty and you'll get a taste of the "facts". Then ask yourself why the computer missed you at all if it doesn't have to think about where to aim, since it knows your exact position at all times.
That should have been RE-Playability. as in how many times you can beat the game and still pick it up a month later and be challenged by the new situations.
A lot of AI that is used in games today can come off as cheap since the computer can think and compare much faster than a human player. Imagine fighting an opponent that can react 10X faster than you.
Another way to look at it is if you think that the AI is learning patterns and adjusting for tactics.
That's been played out in many genres, the most recent to come to mind is the Stargate SG1 episode where a character must face a situation that adapts to his efforts and becomes impossible to beat since the game can react faster than he can and has a perfect memory.
It's a ballance that game AI must match, playability and difficulty.
From the article: "Cable Communications is coming to subscribers' houses and updating the boxes, but not leaving a USB key" that's a problem right there as they are not getting any copies of the code.
and second: "ProServ is selling USB keys." are they selling the key with the code on it, or are they selling just a USB drive that stores a key that has been created by the code. As in a compiled file? If it's just a standard USB key, then it only has a file on it that gets verified. not the code or utility to distribute keys.
If they gave one person the code, then people would be able to generate keys from that code and copy them to USB devices at will and there would be no discussion about this issue. that's how most GPL code becomes: "free to download somewhere" in peoples minds. it's not stated in the actual GPL but it becomes that way since the people that get a copy of the code usually put it up somewhere for others to just download. Instead of buying a CD or other physical copy, that can be charged for.
It's not really the price that is at issue here, it's about the lack of the code being distributed at all.
Because they just want to use their purchased hardware to get FTA (Free to Air) shows. You know, Free as in Free. RTFA! or even the summary!
And since the operating code on the system is protected under the GPL, then they should be able to get the source. The company made money off software that they did not themselves create in whole. They took the communities efforts and are now charging the public to use that code. This is why the violation of GPL software is a problem.
But it was a type of lie. By assigning credit to a group that did not produce the ad, he is committing a type of slander. Making it seem that that group has a specific oppinion or approves of an ad that they had no knowledge of, and didn't approve.
Same as saying, "John says Jill is a bad person" to people. When John has no idea what you're doing and said no such thing. That not only hurts one person but both. It's like trying to start a fight between two people. Not a thing to be proud of, and an underhanded method of addressing the political scene in my eyes. It's bad enough without his help. Try and make it better, and I'll applaud the effort. Do this and I think he should be fired at a minimum.
The same is true for the opposite direction.
People miss the corrilation that maybe bad drivers and those who drive aggressivly tend to want to play games like GTA.
I think people overlook cause and effect relationships like this a lot. It is not less likely that B causes A just because you happened to lable them as such.
That's where it crosses the line into conspiracy to commit. That's what it's there for, to let people have free speech but hold them accountable for what they do. Free speech comes with responsibilities.
1. To protect your own right to free speech you must protect your opponents rights as well. and
2. You are responsible for what you say. People may quote it back to you some day. In court.
Slashdot should script in the submit form: "My opinion is:" before each post in very tiny print.
To ensure that posters don't get sued since opinions can't be lible.
Here's the difference between a parents responsibility and society:
1. You would have to be letting your 2 year old watch TV at 8pm at night. In which case any programming not comming from a VCR/DVD/Tivo would be questionable at best.
2. You would have to allow your 2 year old alone in the car with your keys or leave them out where they could be taken and used without your knowledge by your child.
3. Your child would have to be able to open your front door, the car door, and figure out how to start the car and then shift. All serious physical exertions for a 2 year old.
4. Your child would have to be so impressionable that letting her watch Peter Pan taking small children out the upstairs window to "fly" would be a serious risk.
It is your responsibility to ensure that your child knows enough to keep themselves safe in the environment you allow them to be in. That means that if they are likely to copy an act, you do not allow them the opportunity to see it OR you keep their environment such that they can't.
You wouldn't leave matches with your child on the chance they've seen how you strike them.
You wouldn't leave your child in the car with the keys in the ignition, running.
This is the boundry in which your responsibility to ensure your childs safety and the general publics need not to be your babysitter exists. People should have the ability to make a cartoon, commercial, or movie and have you make the decision wether your child sees it or not. That's why it was aired late at night. If you are worried that a child will "monkey see monkey do" another child, you don't think they'll copy your actions. I'm pretty sure with a child that you know better than that and have seen first hand that a child will copy it's parents pretty easily.
Now have you taken your child driving in your car? You should be ashamed. Showing that impressionable young one such things.
You control what they see and hear. You should be able to explain to them what they are experiencing. If they cannot understand the explination, they shouldn't have the ability to do those things. That's your responsibility. To not put them in the position where they can try. This is parenting. You wouldn't let a 13 year old girl spend the night at a boyfriends house for this exact reason. They do not know enough to be left to decide what is safe and understand the consequences.
Just some comments:
The quote you have in your sig.
That was in relation to getting the job done. Once we were in the middle of it.
We didn't have enough troops in there to do what they were trying, the generals said so at the time. They also didn't have enough armor, weapons, and leadership comming from the field instead of from the government.
To argue that the time for blame is over when the blame is pointing at your side is childish. The point I made in my first post was trying to draw similarities between owning up for your actions and this governments attempts to avoid doing so.
To say that the arguement for going to war is over is inane. People have lost their lives for our decision to go to war. It's a valid discussion unless you de-value the lives of our troops. Remember in school when you studied history and they said: "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it."
That was from a writer named George Santayana, he also said: "Only the dead have seen an end to war."
I'll leave the topic of Fox news with this:
Most people have an opinion. Most people try to get others to have that same opinion, as we see on slashdot all the time. The people with an audience usually try to persuade others to have their opinion weather they are conscious of it or not. For an example that's on record, check out the newspaper business. Most newspapers have an editor that tends to skew the articles and topics in a way that they like. In one example in recent admition Rupert Murdoch, said of his News Corp that owns Fox and the New York Post that he tried to shape the agenda in the Iraq war.
That's fine as long as the news outlet doesn't turn around and try to say that they are fair and balanced.
To their credit Fox news does try and have others opinions voiced on their show. They just try to still persuade their viewers to believe what they do. And since they do the editing and have the control, it comes out as biased.
That's the same as other news outlets, they all have an agenda weather they know it or admit to it or not. The only way to avert this from happening would be to have two news teams that are biased in opposite directions cover the same news story and alternate who goes first on each story they cover.
That would be fair and balanced.
That's like saying:
:)
The people that didn't forsee that the war in Iraq could possibly lead to civil war are responsible for not taking any steps at all to prevent it.
and that:
The president and his office should be willing to admit that they are responsible for the easily-anticipated consequences of their actions. But because they don't, apparently he does not understand that "adult" doesn't just mean naughty words; it also means owning up to your actions.
Just watch Fox and you'll see that those arguments are ridiculous.
The people who go into these professions have the right to try and do their job as best they can, that includes trying to do things that haven't been done before and that they haven't been trained to do. The right of initiative is what I was referring to.
The goal of these police is to protect the people. That's their job. their right is to try and do it as best they can. Inventing ways to use new tools and ideas to out smart the bad guys. That makes a cop a great asset rather than fodder for the streets.
My comparison was to the courts job in which they restrain the eager innovation with a long sighted view of the possible missuse of the technology and do so with a specific eye tword the letter of the law as well as the intent it was written with. The judge in this case didn't look too far ahead and didn't think of the intent too much either.
A person that helped shape our country, Benjamin Franklin thought "that it is better one hundred guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer."
Probably listening to Voltaire who stood for most things we think makes America great today but can find little proof in the news to show as examples these days.
Two situations where using gps trackers would be ok.
1. Suspected bad guy with a warrant for tracking, just like the warrant required to tap his phone and get his bank records. Limited battery time and or limited data storage onboard for scope requirement of the warrant. Provision in the warrant for realtime or just storage of location.
2. Vehicle evading police. One tag shot at the car to trace it and all the high speed accidents would be avoided. They can fall back and video tape the suspect while other cars block off the area and fence them in. This would meet the probable cause requirement in an emergency to avoid getting a warrant. Limit the tracer to 24hrs battery life sending the live signal and recording the information.
Everybody has rights in a civil society. the rights of the police to try and get the ones who voilate others rights included. It's the judges responsibility to restrain the eagerness of law inforcement to catch people and ballance that need with the requirement of the people to fear an invasion of privacy when they have done nothing wrong.
And for all you people out there with that "If you have nothing to hide you shouldn't be worried." BS...
Why don't you just give the police the right to take you outside the country and torture you without trial or explination or representation?
Oh yeah, you did.
Uh, under preferences.
The link just to the right of the text box that says preferences.
Sorry, should have been a hundred dollars per hour. not per editor.
And the discussion I was dismissing was from the posters that state numbers like they know them not as their opinion.
I said I DOUBT that something costs such and such. others have been saying that something actually costs such and such without any references or experience.
The main point aside from my own observations was that I would like to see the portion of my money that actually goes to the author as well as the percentages that go to other costs.
They do this in the DMV to show you where your fees go.
I know that it takes a skilled person do do any job well, I also know that once a computer program is written well it can perform tasks much faster and do it with supervision rather than by hand. Typesetting CAN be as easy as Edit -> select all -> Format -> Paperback and it would justify all the pages and take the chapter headings and make a table of contents and all that. Supervision of that process does not take thousands of dollars for every book. The publishers make a lot of PROFIT so there are costs to the publisher and there is my book sale price and they don't even out.
Do some searching online and you'll find the American Association of Publishers states that the typical manufacturing cost for a book was approximately 25 percent. So a 6 dollar paperback costs 1.50 to produce. Then you have shipping and storage and the retail outlet overhead and profit to add to that. These costs do not apply to the new books.
Proofreaders and fact checkers and plot reviewers oh my.
My comment "And editors, seriously, there's a spellcheck on almost all computers" as meant to be to the editors. I still find spelling errors in major works that my e-mail spell check would catch.
Again my point is that I'd like to see the numbers before I go out any buy in to this new electronic format. I love reading, but if the authors aren't getting a decent percentage of the money I pay compared to physical books considering the material and printing and shipping and storage and shelving space are simply not applicable in an electronic book sale, that money should then go to the author since everything else is the same. Publishers could make the same profits off the authors work that they had been making before. The manufacturing and distribution method is cheaper with e-books.
Is the author realizing any of that savings? Where is the money going?
And to all the people out there that are spouting off numbers and guestimates: shut up
Unless you know a number or percentage be quiet.
We all don't know everything on every topic yet we come in here spouting off like we're experts.
My main point is to draw attention to what we actually want to buy. And that's an experience that an author created. If that's a bunch of researchers and the cost is more for lets say an encycleopedia set then fine we can all understand that. If it's a sci-fi novel written by 1 author, don't lecture me about typesetters and editors. That's BS because it's a finite amount of effort and typesetting is now performed by printers and controlled by computers and probably was taken care of when the author wrote the book on his computer. No matter what else happens, the words that were written become digital as soon as possible. it's in everybodies best interest, including the publishers.
And editors, seriously, there's a spellcheck on almost all computers and handing out a couple copies for editors to read really can't cost that much. I'd like to see the numbers but I doubt that it's over a hundred bucks per editor to read a book and make some notes. Hell, I'd doit for free just for the oportunity to read the books.
I'd be very interested to see a pie chart of the percentages from a paperback vs an e-book.
Untill I see that or hear that the authors are getting a certain percentage of the sale price, I'll stick to the used book stores all over town. I can get a used paperback for a buck and it makes no difference to me that some of the pages have fingerprints on them or dogeared corners. I am paying for the experience the author created. And the used book store makes a profit.
It all boils down to how much the author is paid per sale.
The only other thing that makes any impact is the money the publishing company spends to promote and distribute the book. Now that we have digital distribution it's got to be less than a buck to add a book to a site and the bandwidth is nothing. The main money is in publicity and most of that is advertising flyers (bus adds, billboards, all the static printed poster stuff) not too many commercials and complex adds like they have for movies and concerts.
How often have you gone out and purchased a book because of a really convincing ad?
would you have purchased it if you were just given the synopsis? a clever plot in the genre that you prefer is probably what most people look for in their fiction selection. And for the non fiction the subject is probably 90 percent of the deciding factor.
Best seller lists make themselves.
Top reviews are for good books and are free to the publisher (should be, tsk tsk if they're paid for)
So where's the numbers?
Justify to me that my money isn't just stuffing the pockets of people who really didn't create the thing I want. I want the words. I'll pay for the words and make the person who wrote them happy to hopefully write another book I'll buy and the cycle will go on and on.
But if I'm told I have to pay a large amount and buy less books because of it and there pops up another P2P service that I can get the books I want because people like me don't feel bad enough to pay some fat cat then we'll have another napster revolution and in the end some iTunes will come in and set it up right. I wish we could skip the BS part and just have these people realize that the best thing that they could do to get our money is treat us like intelligent people and give us a fair price.
We'll buy the books if we feel the price is fair. otherwise it'll be P2P.
Justify the price and show how much is going to the author.
If I can do a Google search and find the patent file I could make one in my basement. :) Back to Free.
Once information like this is available it would ba almost impossible to keep propriatary. If I can buy one and take it apart I will have the knowledge.
I hope this is all jumping the gun and they will release it to the public after licensing it to the people.
Or is that two pipe dreams in one post?
It works, and we'll get it.
And the effectiveness is still at question.
Are you really going to decrypt your document at the threat of breaking this law.
If you fail to decrypt the document you are punished for breaking that law,
If you decrypt the document and really have something bad, you are punished much more severely.
It's like having a law that prohibits committing suicide. Seriously, if you break that law do you care?
If you are a terrorist, do you care if they punish you for not decrypting that document?
Or do you care more that they do not get the information?
This law is simply there to get the people that are nowhere near the "Evil" lawbreakers.
The general public that has the occasional poker game and bets on the superbowl at work, both illegal things because of similar laws.
So the police with their dash cameras and the tollbooths with their license plate cameras, and the stop light cameras, grocery stoor security cameras, mini mart cameras, department store cameras and even the security cameras that they have in the police station where he was arrested are all ok, but on his private property where he lives and is getting harrassed, he can't use one to show the police what they've done to violate his rights?
yeah, ok. now which way to canada?
PS, in the article the police try and argue what happened at his house, if he warned them about the camera and if he had posted signs about the camera.
now if there's video tape of those events and facts, just review that. no argument. no problem. case closed.
I'd like to see if the cops are on film warning motorists that they are on camera every time they get pulled over. now compare.
You're expelled.
"Replay Music" developed by Applian Technologies
It can record any song being played on your computer and automatically enters all the tag info while compressing it to MP3 on the fly (or to uncompressed files if your pc is too slow) It'll record anything that windows media player plays because it just replaces the driver for your soundcard that splits the signal in two. One goes to your hard drive as a new mp3 and one streamed out your soundcard.
Simple.
DRM is Dead Restrictive Moneygrubbing
It will never work so long as it can be played.
And if it can't be played no one will buy it.
Logical death.
And the difference in this case would be......
I call a reporter that later does a story on government corruption and that call is logged in a government database controlled by the very people who have the most motivation to abuse it without our knowledge.
This is what we were so afraid of when we were fighting communism, that an invasive government idea would infest our basic rights to freedoms and liberties assured us in the constitution.
A quote by our founding fathers:
"Those who trade security for liberty deserve neither."
BF