I've gotten a fair amount of garbage results from Google -- not any where NEAR the level where I would consider tossing it in the pile of "useless stuff". I'd say JUST enough to where I'm leery of taking everything Google spits back at me at the gospel.
I have, however, received excellent results when reading original source materials... Something which Beck suggests everyone do. How can this be seen as anything but excellent advice?
Just because Chicken Little is running around saying "The sky is falling" doesn't mean is wrong on EVERYTHING that comes out of his beak. At the very least we can agree that a broken clock is right at least twice a day, cant we?
I don't swear for the hell of it. Language is a poor enough means of communication. We've got to use all the words we've got. Besides, there are damn few words anybody understands -- Spencer Tracy (Inherit the Wind).
That said, we never curse in our house. Neither have our children (age 10 and 8) other than to ask about a word they've heard.
I mostly hear of worthwhile books only through word of mouth
I wouldn't say mostly -- but word of mouth is fairly significant for me as well. I used to get most of my book ideas just walking down the isles at the local book shops (used and new). Far less so now. I still look for new material from authors I already like (and who are still alive).
Have the public (i.e. the state) employ all artists at minimum living wage, with bonuses for popularity making the average artist earn a decent salary. If an artist thinks he's too big for this, let him sell his work through contracts like any other craftsman.
Why don't you become a patron? Cant afford to take care of an artist yourself? Then fuck you and your ideas on spending money that's not yours. The moment your "plan" come to effect, the vast majority of the population will become "artists" -- including me. I'll be damned if I'm going to work my arse off for this -- but I'll happily buy any particular piece of art that's within my budget and I fancy.
Of course it'll mostly end the mega profits of a handful but the majority of authors would come out about the same.
I'm not so sure... There exists already the ability for an author to sell their book for a buck -- and several have. This model has failed to take off so far. It doesn't mean it WONT, but I'm very skeptical.
It has not been established yet whether this, in turn, is in fact necessary for an adequate supply of literature to be available to society, or whether masterpieces will be produced anyway and their authors sustained by means other than per-printing fees (like Shakespeare's plays). Many, many outcomes are possible and most haven't even been tried yet; but insisting on a model based on a scarcity of physical objects that has become completely pointless, just because it's what you know and what you currently do, is as disingenuous as subsidizing buggy-whips.
I would strongly argue that it HAS been established -- and a successful model has NOT been found to replace it.
"...disingenuous as subsidizing buggy-whips". Interesting, but failed analogy. Buggy whips were no longer necessary/desired. It wasn't that they were replaced by "virtual buggy whips" which still required a ton of work creating and marketing and were desired by the public. Books/literature are *NOT* on the "obsolete" pile. The media on which they are presented has just changed.
Why all the concern for publishers rather than concern for authors?
I don't think you read my post correctly. Please re-read. I show concern for both.
Are you sure that publishing companies are the only possible way for authors to get paid for their work?
Of course they aren't. But they are certainly better and SELLING and MARKETING a book than the average person. They also are pretty spot on with regards to edits.
You may not like "the middleman" as one AC put it in this thread, but they offer a service -- and usually at a level and is far above what the average person and provide. I don't NEED to by my food from the grocery store -- I could by it from the farmer direct -- or grow it myself and cut out ALL the middlemen. But I couldn't do it as either efficiently or economically (it would cost me more in time/fuel to collect my food from the farm -- or grow it myself (at which I would probably fail)).
In this case, Sony wants what's best for the publisher and worst for the reader from each of the two technologies (paper books and e-books), which I think is neither fair nor is going to cause a lot of sales.
So, what would you suggest? The publisher sells one ebook to a library that can then GIVE away the book? And if one library has it, why should any other library buy it? Just copy the first sold copy and give THAT away.
There NEEDS to be a financial incentive for a publisher to publish books. And there NEEDS to be a financial incentive for an author to write a book. If you take away their ability to make money on their works, you will effectively kill the majority of new materials. No new novels, no new poems, no new articles, etc.
How can this not be seen by the "information wants to be free" crowd?
I have ZERO problem with loaning an ebook I have to someone and not having it available to me until it is "returned". I have ZERO problem with a library only being able to "loan" an ebook out in volumes that match their license until the book is 'returned'.
I *DO* believe we should be able to re-sell ebook copies just like paper copies, though.
Well, you failed to get it straight. The GP didn't claim that Muslims are/were a threat to him or anyone else. He claimed that:
Rackspace, like most of the US, are terrified of Muslims
He never claimed that the feeling was JUSTIFIED. And he's got a point. Making the conversation more confrontational might be more productive than over sensitivity. I don't know if this is true, but I certainly don't think tip-toeing around any religion is ideal, either.
Not necessarily. One does not preclude the other. But I didn't make the statement -- I merely pointed to information supporting the statement. And that looking for information is quite easy. That is, if one isn't lazy.
Aerosols and black carbon from air pollution may be responsible for as much as 90 percent of the melting taking place in Himalayan glaciers, according to a new study.
Anybody who's been mildly following this with an open mind would be aware of these studies.
The answer can be even more subtle. If this study is correct, then either there are a bunch of stupid Toyota drivers *OR* there is a problem with the PLACEMENT and/or SHAPE of the accelorator and break peddles. I'm leaning towards the latter.
The load of one plug-in recharging (about 2 kilowatts) is roughly the same as that of four or five plasma television sets. Plasma TVs hardly brought worries about grid crashes."
I think there are roughly 2 houses on my block (of about 20 homes) that have a single plasma TV. They do, however, have at least a single car. Many of them have 2 or more. That translates as a lot of "plasma TVs" on that block.
Also, we need to realize that they are limiting their expectations:
Even if the U.S. alone has half a million plug-ins to recharge (out of 300 million vehicles on the road, remember) within a few years, utility executives aren't losing any sleep. In fact, they're happy. They love the idea of selling you "fuel" for your vehicle.
Basically they are saying "Electric cars wont bring down the grid -- if they aren't widely adopted". What if, instead of half a million, there's 10-30 million? How many "plasma TVs" does it take to bring down the grid? Add to this that our current administration wants to increase the cost of our energy -- so not only will gas be more expensive, but so will electricity. What's the incentive?
Oh? Why not read the DoE's charter from 1977? You might well read it's mission statement from today, but that doesn't change the validity of my statement!
Critical thinking: It's more that a knee-jerk reaction based on a sound bite.
I would suggest re-reading my post, then your post. Then I would further suggest you actually apply a bit of critical thinking and see if what you posted actually means what you obviously think it means.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll agree with that statement with regards to the article, but reading the comments here suggest otherwise...
I've gotten a fair amount of garbage results from Google -- not any where NEAR the level where I would consider tossing it in the pile of "useless stuff". I'd say JUST enough to where I'm leery of taking everything Google spits back at me at the gospel.
I have, however, received excellent results when reading original source materials... Something which Beck suggests everyone do. How can this be seen as anything but excellent advice?
Just because Chicken Little is running around saying "The sky is falling" doesn't mean is wrong on EVERYTHING that comes out of his beak. At the very least we can agree that a broken clock is right at least twice a day, cant we?
No it isn't. Entitlements are (HHS, SS, Medicare, Medicaid). Not only do those nearly twice of the DoD, they aren't mandated Constitutional functions.
That CERTAINLY meets the "less restrictive" criteria on of the GPs requested...
I don't swear for the hell of it. Language is a poor enough means of communication. We've got to use all the words we've got. Besides, there are damn few words anybody understands -- Spencer Tracy (Inherit the Wind).
That said, we never curse in our house. Neither have our children (age 10 and 8) other than to ask about a word they've heard.
But... but... It's got what plants crave! It's got electrolytes!
I wouldn't say mostly -- but word of mouth is fairly significant for me as well. I used to get most of my book ideas just walking down the isles at the local book shops (used and new). Far less so now. I still look for new material from authors I already like (and who are still alive).
Why don't you become a patron? Cant afford to take care of an artist yourself? Then fuck you and your ideas on spending money that's not yours. The moment your "plan" come to effect, the vast majority of the population will become "artists" -- including me. I'll be damned if I'm going to work my arse off for this -- but I'll happily buy any particular piece of art that's within my budget and I fancy.
Statement 1: True
True.
Statement 2: False
Not True.
I'm not so sure... There exists already the ability for an author to sell their book for a buck -- and several have. This model has failed to take off so far. It doesn't mean it WONT, but I'm very skeptical.
You're wrong.
I would strongly argue that it HAS been established -- and a successful model has NOT been found to replace it.
"...disingenuous as subsidizing buggy-whips". Interesting, but failed analogy. Buggy whips were no longer necessary/desired. It wasn't that they were replaced by "virtual buggy whips" which still required a ton of work creating and marketing and were desired by the public. Books/literature are *NOT* on the "obsolete" pile. The media on which they are presented has just changed.
I don't think you read my post correctly. Please re-read. I show concern for both.
Of course they aren't. But they are certainly better and SELLING and MARKETING a book than the average person. They also are pretty spot on with regards to edits.
You may not like "the middleman" as one AC put it in this thread, but they offer a service -- and usually at a level and is far above what the average person and provide. I don't NEED to by my food from the grocery store -- I could by it from the farmer direct -- or grow it myself and cut out ALL the middlemen. But I couldn't do it as either efficiently or economically (it would cost me more in time/fuel to collect my food from the farm -- or grow it myself (at which I would probably fail)).
So, what would you suggest? The publisher sells one ebook to a library that can then GIVE away the book? And if one library has it, why should any other library buy it? Just copy the first sold copy and give THAT away.
There NEEDS to be a financial incentive for a publisher to publish books. And there NEEDS to be a financial incentive for an author to write a book. If you take away their ability to make money on their works, you will effectively kill the majority of new materials. No new novels, no new poems, no new articles, etc.
How can this not be seen by the "information wants to be free" crowd?
I have ZERO problem with loaning an ebook I have to someone and not having it available to me until it is "returned". I have ZERO problem with a library only being able to "loan" an ebook out in volumes that match their license until the book is 'returned'.
I *DO* believe we should be able to re-sell ebook copies just like paper copies, though.
Well, you failed to get it straight. The GP didn't claim that Muslims are/were a threat to him or anyone else. He claimed that:
Rackspace, like most of the US, are terrified of Muslims
He never claimed that the feeling was JUSTIFIED. And he's got a point. Making the conversation more confrontational might be more productive than over sensitivity. I don't know if this is true, but I certainly don't think tip-toeing around any religion is ideal, either.
I'm sorry, but my head is about to explode. Either you are not in the US or you've no idea HOW our economy works.
http://www.census.gov/epcd/www/smallbus.html
Most jobs in the US are supplied by small businesses.
I suggest you don't know what you are talking about re: 1791. Either that, or you are deliberately trying to re-write history.
Your statement is totally misleading as to why a national bank was proposed and the war debt of the various states taken on by the Federal government.
Not necessarily. One does not preclude the other. But I didn't make the statement -- I merely pointed to information supporting the statement. And that looking for information is quite easy. That is, if one isn't lazy.
How about:
http://e360.yale.edu/content/digest.msp?id=2264
Aerosols and black carbon from air pollution may be responsible for as much as 90 percent of the melting taking place in Himalayan glaciers, according to a new study.
Anybody who's been mildly following this with an open mind would be aware of these studies.
Google "Glacier Melt Soot". You might be surprised by how many hits you get.
For example:
http://news.discovery.com/earth/black-soot-himalayas-glaciers.html
The answer can be even more subtle. If this study is correct, then either there are a bunch of stupid Toyota drivers *OR* there is a problem with the PLACEMENT and/or SHAPE of the accelorator and break peddles. I'm leaning towards the latter.
I missed "200 million cars". Can you point it out for me? I seem to be missing it still.
I think there are roughly 2 houses on my block (of about 20 homes) that have a single plasma TV. They do, however, have at least a single car. Many of them have 2 or more. That translates as a lot of "plasma TVs" on that block.
Also, we need to realize that they are limiting their expectations:
Basically they are saying "Electric cars wont bring down the grid -- if they aren't widely adopted". What if, instead of half a million, there's 10-30 million? How many "plasma TVs" does it take to bring down the grid? Add to this that our current administration wants to increase the cost of our energy -- so not only will gas be more expensive, but so will electricity. What's the incentive?
Oh? Why not read the DoE's charter from 1977? You might well read it's mission statement from today, but that doesn't change the validity of my statement!
I would suggest re-reading my post, then your post. Then I would further suggest you actually apply a bit of critical thinking and see if what you posted actually means what you obviously think it means.
Question: Why was the department of energy created?
Answer: Out of the oil crisis of the 1970's, it was formed to attempt to free us from dependence on foreign oil.
Percentage of imported oil in 1977 (when the department was formed): ~35%
Percentage of imported oil in 2010: ~64%