If you'd presented a description of the problem it solves - I'd say you are correct. But you didn't. (Airy handwaving about imaginary worlds isn't describing a problem.)
Funny, I said enough for you to realise what the problem was: Books falling to such a low interest that traditional publishing means are no longer profitable.
The problem with this problem is... it's not really a problem. As I said, these (POD, not just the POD vending) machines have been introduced (multiple) times as a solution to this 'problem' - but have failed each time. This suggests to me that the problem doesn't actually exist.
One big beneficiary will be small-time authors: if a publisher isn't taking as much of a risk, they can take on more clients and ones less likely to hit it big.
They are still taking a fairly good sized risk - editing and producing a book, along with promoting it still costs real money. Unlike printing costs (which can and are partially recouped by pulping and recycling returns), these costs are totally sunk.
In addition, from a bookstores POV, these machines are a *huge* risk - they are significant capital investments that will require the sale of many books to recoup the investment. From a publishers POV, the same applies - unless you are moving a lot of books, the capital investment is daunting.
Print-on-demand is a solution in search of a problem.
Actually it isn't. Its a solution people refuse to invest in.
Try reading what I wrote - POD machines have debuted to much fanfare every other year or so for over a decade. Millions of dollars have been invested in them - and all of it to date lost because either the machines made crappy (physical) quality books, or it turned out that there wasn't a demand.
Imagine if Marvel and DC Comics made available all of their old comics through PoD. No more out of print comics. Imagine if books that are now out of print, were actually made available through PoD. No more out of print books.
Books generally go out of print for a reason - because the demand for them sinks below a profitable level and/or interest in them drops to near zero. There's a reason why you can still buy (brand new) copies of Pride and Prejudice, but finding a copy of some random best seller from the 70's can be difficult.
No, PoD is definitely a solution for a very real problem. The only thing stopping it from taking off is publishers and copyright holders.
If you'd presented a description of the problem it solves - I'd say you are correct. But you didn't. (Airy handwaving about imaginary worlds isn't describing a problem.) I also note the arguement weakening note of invoking one of Slashdot's favorite bogeymen - Evil Conspiracies.
A machine like this has debuted every other year or so for about the last decade - they have significantly failed to reach either their technical promises (producing crappy quality books) or their commercial goals. (You have to sell a lot of books to make back your initial investment.)
Print-on-demand is a solution in search of a problem.
There is such a thing as purity of motive, and it counts for a lot.
Certainly true - but that attribute is possessed by niether side. Your depiction of Microsoft is best characterized as 'FUD' - and your depiction of the pro-Linux side is best characterized as 'idealistic'. (Where it is not hopelessly naive.)
[DISCLAIMER: The poster called 'eno2001' does not believe in what he stated above at all and is merely parodying the typical lies and misconceptions about GNU/Linux that come from the anti-Linux crowd.]
The fun part is - there is a kernel of truth in many of the statements. The pro-Linux crowd likes to pretend otherwise though. (Equally, the pro-Linux crowd is not above lies, misconceptions, and FUD themselves.)
I don't see how you can say the piece wasn't about costs. That thread was all through it. You expected actual numbers? That's *very* proprietary information to any vendor.
if it doesn't have actual numbers, then its not a cost analysis. Words mean things - even if the marketdroids try and convince us otherwise.
I agree that MS was abusing the naming system before Netscape was created in 1994. But what SW did MS release in the 80s that was even v3? Not that such history contradicts your statement...
MS-DOS, Windows (which crept across into the 90's), Quick Basic (which also crept into the 90's and is *not* to be confused with the QBASIC that shipped with DOS 5), and various other professional tools/languages. (It's all but forgotten today - but across the Eighties Microsoft was a major player in the developer market.)
Netscape broke everything with it's "public Beta" release that defined Web SW distribution. Microsoft has made the curse ubiquitous with SW versions 1, 2, 3 standing in for Alpha, Beta, Release, but mixing it up with new features to substitute for bugfixes.
Microsoft was doing that long before Netscape even existed - across the Eighties wise computer users didn't buy anything from Microsoft until version 3.0 hit the streets.
Disclaimer: I don't hate Microsoft. I am, however, frequently annoyed by their mediocrity, and unbelievably frustrated that someone doesn't have the balls to start a company dedicated to making an absolutely, positively 100%-compatible Windows clone based on a Unix-like operating system.
The problem is that to such a company would have to actually work on the Hard Bits; configuration, installation, maintenance, application and service interoperability...
This so-called analysis was written by thinking of a conclusion first, then filling in the blanks. There are no citing of references to support his claims. This is just simply a political blurb.
I was thinking the same thing - TFA is nothing but a long winded rant against Micro$oft. Reading a 'cost analysis', I expect the discussion to center around... costs. Which were significant by their absence.
I still find it interesting that at 18 you're allowed join the military and die but you're not allowed to drink alcohol.
Unless they've changed things, you can still drink on based if you are under 21.
When's the last time you checked? During Vietnam? Hasn't been like that for more than 20 years. When I first joined the Army in '87, on-post drinking age was set at whatever the age was in that state--- which, due to the political blackmail that is the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984, pretty much has been set at 21.
That may have been the Army's policy - but it was not the Navy's. As late as 1991, you could drink beer in the E Club if you were under 21 at NSB Bangor - even though the drinking age in the State of Washington was 21. (I served in the USN from 1981-1991.)
I wonder what will happen to share price when people realize that Google is more-or-less a traditional media company?
Logically it would rise. Google is currently 353rd on the Fortune 500 list. Time Warner is 40th, and most of the other big media groups are in the top 100.
That's somewhat apples-and-oranges. Google isn't a media company - its an ad agency. Time-Warner and the other big media companies are content creators and providers - niether of which Google does.
Note to other posters: I have heard of rotating restaurants and/or observation decks - this is not an utterly new concept. So, getting the utilities (water, sewer, electric, etc.) to the residents is a matter of scaling past solutions.
Every rotating restaurant and/or observation deck which I've visited only has electricity on the rotating part, everything else is on the stationary part. AFAIK - there is nothing to scale.
My memory is vague. But I'm fairly sure that the trivia from IMDB is BS.
A good portion of the 'trivia' on the IMDB is bogus.
Though I see they have finally deleted the claim that USS Blueback was used for Red October. (Though the Wikipedia, even when provided with evidence, merely replaces the claim with weasel words.)
Rigging plumbing, sewage, power, cable, phone, etc for full 360 degree rotation will be tricky.
Anything electrical is easy. Just use a bunch of ring-shaped conductors around the axis of rotation.
Simple in concept - tricky in execution. Take, for example, the three phase mains power - the three rings have to be far enough apart to avoid sparking. The brushes and rings are subject to wear and sensitive to contamination.... Nor do these rings work real well for RF (read cable) frequency transmission.
I don't see much of a need for a seal at all: run all your plumbing down hill in a pipe that extends into a gap in the central column, have that gap slope downhill into collector tubes. I guess you might need to flush that once in a while.
Without a seal you are going to have all manner of noxious scents emerging - the water seal at the bottom of the toilet and under the bath are there for a reason.
I do agree the space tourism industry will not be sending their own probes around the solar system any time soon, but your premise of their non-contribution in exploration is slightly questionable.
Explorers are not tourists, and tourists are not explorers. Your inability to differentiate between them says much.
The NASA's vision for space exploration is to take humans back to the moon, mars and beyond. This doesn't differ from the vision of the private space industry, who will be the ones taking people there in masses.
ROTFLMAO. Using this 'logic' - someone who takes the QE2 from Europe to the US is no different from those who sailed on the Mayflower, and someone who takes a safari is indistinguishable from David Livingstone. It's nonsensical statement like this which are prima facie evidence of your utter lack of a clue.
Researches and explorers will surely find a way on a such private ship one day (along with governmental option of course) as they are finding their way on commercial airliners today.
Certainly - but that doesn't make the tourists that round out the rest of the passenger manifest researchers and explorers.
What might my fictional points be then ? I'd be glad if you pointed them out for me, you being more aware of the situation.
Start with virtually every word you've written - you won't be far off.
I see the timescale may be off, but the actions and consequences are not.
Evidence of cluelessness - inability to differentiate between fantasy, metaphysical handwaving, and reality.
I began by talking about the current private players being the takers of the first steps of private exploration, not as something equivalent to NASA or other space agency. I wasn't talking about scientific, but human exploration and finding about ourselves, in a comforting reply to the parent about the options some able individuals are developing.
This is one of those fictional/metaphysical bits - where you create a nonstandard useage of a word and use it as the basis of an argument.
Space tourism will provide a huge new area of human experience to play with, which will lead to new insights about the universe we live in.
Metaphysical masturbation - the precise kind of rhetoric that has held back actual exploration for decades.
I guess you would be happier if I said it wouldn't ?
I'd be happier if you and whole bunch of other folks would learn to tell the difference between Star Trek and mundane reality.
Those high tech gadgets are considered hogs not because of the gross amount of power they consume, but because they are powered 24/7, whether they are in use or not. Sure my dryer (if it were electric rather than gas) would consume more power than my PC - but my dryer is only running when there are clothes in it being dried. OTOH - the average 'always on' PC is eating power even while the owner is sleeping or at work. The 'always one' TV eats power even when nobody it watching it. Etc... etc...
The upgrade also includes large beige junction boxes, which is causing the predictable uproar among the affluent, yard-obsessed yuppies who live in the suburb in question.
I'm not a yuppie, or affluent, or yard-obsessed. And I *still* wouldn't want one of those giant boxes on my property.
You are saying I have no clue about exploration but provide no grounds for your argument whereas I stated a fact you could have researched.
I say you have no clue because you cannot reliably differentiate between the (very) few facts and (very) many opinions you have posted.
It's obvious who here is more 'scientific' and into 'exploration'.
That would be me - who has actively researched the issues for nearly thirty years now. It isn't you - who constantly relies on rhetoric, wishful thinking, and metaphysics in place of facts.
We have several sites that have been physically surveyed, plus the work done by Lunar Prospector.
And the total area of the physical surveys, when compared with the total area of the Moon - is vanishingly small. Worse yet, what physical surveys we have done can only be described as cursory when one is in an extremely charitable mood.
Please read up on Lunar Prospector before attempting to make an intelligent comment. Thanks.
I have read up on the Lunar Prospector - and am quite aware of what it accomplished. Equally I am aware (as you are not) with what it *didn't* accomplish and with what what cannot be accomplished by remote observation. For example - anything more than from a few centimeters down to a meter or so (depending on the instrument), is completely hidden from Prospector. For another example - while Prospector did discover large concentrations of hydrogen, we have no real idea what form that hydrogen is in. The odds favor, slightly, that it is some form of water (possibly as ice, possibly bound in a mineral) - but that is by no means a certainty.
Rather than going to the moon to figure out how to have a airtight, self-sustainable eco-system and colony, why not try it in the ocean first? Yes there have been above-ground attempts (why did they stop).
The professional and academic attempts haven't stopped. Biosphere II was a grand stunt carried out by eco-wizards - and died when they discovered that their grand fantasies weren't in sync with the real world.
Underwater makes it harder to cheat and would be closer to moon isolation for much less cost.
There's no need to go underwater, you can accomplish the testing just fine in a warehouse or hangar. Going underwater increases the cost and risk with no accompnying increase in return.
NASA is for example interested in using Rutan's vehicles in their exploration, as well as the structures Bigelow is building...
So? That doesn't change what I said one bit. I use Coleman camping equipment when I head out a campground, my friend uses Coleman camping equipment at the top of highest mountains in the world - despite the commonality of equipment, there is still a vast gulf between us. NASA's use for Rutan's vehicles is as carriers for testing scale models... I.E. headed out to the campground.
The passengers are for sure in for an experience, an exploration on themselves and the space.. It's the stepstone of the human experience in space. there's going to be a huge mental change in the humanity when space tourism and commercial exploitation kicks in, just imagine seeing the huge scale of space for only a few minutes. It's a totally new experience without flags and politics.
ROTFL. Marketing buzzwords having nothing to do with reality. It's trek/hippy weenies like yourself that have held back space exploration for decades with your unrealistic expectations and metaphysical rhetoric.
Governmental and private exploration will go hand in hand, most of the people behind private companies come from or have previus/on-going financial connections with NASA.
You haven't the foggiest clue about exploration, New Space (alt.space), or NASA.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with this problem is... it's not really a problem. As I said, these (POD, not just the POD vending) machines have been introduced (multiple) times as a solution to this 'problem' - but have failed each time. This suggests to me that the problem doesn't actually exist.
They are still taking a fairly good sized risk - editing and producing a book, along with promoting it still costs real money. Unlike printing costs (which can and are partially recouped by pulping and recycling returns), these costs are totally sunk.
In addition, from a bookstores POV, these machines are a *huge* risk - they are significant capital investments that will require the sale of many books to recoup the investment. From a publishers POV, the same applies - unless you are moving a lot of books, the capital investment is daunting.
Try reading what I wrote - POD machines have debuted to much fanfare every other year or so for over a decade. Millions of dollars have been invested in them - and all of it to date lost because either the machines made crappy (physical) quality books, or it turned out that there wasn't a demand.
Books generally go out of print for a reason - because the demand for them sinks below a profitable level and/or interest in them drops to near zero. There's a reason why you can still buy (brand new) copies of Pride and Prejudice, but finding a copy of some random best seller from the 70's can be difficult.
If you'd presented a description of the problem it solves - I'd say you are correct. But you didn't. (Airy handwaving about imaginary worlds isn't describing a problem.) I also note the arguement weakening note of invoking one of Slashdot's favorite bogeymen - Evil Conspiracies.
A machine like this has debuted every other year or so for about the last decade - they have significantly failed to reach either their technical promises (producing crappy quality books) or their commercial goals. (You have to sell a lot of books to make back your initial investment.)
Print-on-demand is a solution in search of a problem.
Certainly true - but that attribute is possessed by niether side. Your depiction of Microsoft is best characterized as 'FUD' - and your depiction of the pro-Linux side is best characterized as 'idealistic'. (Where it is not hopelessly naive.)
The fun part is - there is a kernel of truth in many of the statements. The pro-Linux crowd likes to pretend otherwise though. (Equally, the pro-Linux crowd is not above lies, misconceptions, and FUD themselves.)
if it doesn't have actual numbers, then its not a cost analysis. Words mean things - even if the marketdroids try and convince us otherwise.
MS-DOS, Windows (which crept across into the 90's), Quick Basic (which also crept into the 90's and is *not* to be confused with the QBASIC that shipped with DOS 5), and various other professional tools/languages. (It's all but forgotten today - but across the Eighties Microsoft was a major player in the developer market.)
Microsoft was doing that long before Netscape even existed - across the Eighties wise computer users didn't buy anything from Microsoft until version 3.0 hit the streets.
The problem is that to such a company would have to actually work on the Hard Bits; configuration, installation, maintenance, application and service interoperability...
I was thinking the same thing - TFA is nothing but a long winded rant against Micro$oft. Reading a 'cost analysis', I expect the discussion to center around... costs. Which were significant by their absence.
That may have been the Army's policy - but it was not the Navy's. As late as 1991, you could drink beer in the E Club if you were under 21 at NSB Bangor - even though the drinking age in the State of Washington was 21. (I served in the USN from 1981-1991.)
Unless they've changed things, you can still drink on based if you are under 21.
That's somewhat apples-and-oranges. Google isn't a media company - its an ad agency. Time-Warner and the other big media companies are content creators and providers - niether of which Google does.
Every rotating restaurant and/or observation deck which I've visited only has electricity on the rotating part, everything else is on the stationary part. AFAIK - there is nothing to scale.
'Widely available' is a term without meaning on the web, either it's available - or its not. One copy is all it takes.
A good portion of the 'trivia' on the IMDB is bogus.
Though I see they have finally deleted the claim that USS Blueback was used for Red October. (Though the Wikipedia, even when provided with evidence, merely replaces the claim with weasel words.)
Simple in concept - tricky in execution. Take, for example, the three phase mains power - the three rings have to be far enough apart to avoid sparking. The brushes and rings are subject to wear and sensitive to contamination.... Nor do these rings work real well for RF (read cable) frequency transmission.
Without a seal you are going to have all manner of noxious scents emerging - the water seal at the bottom of the toilet and under the bath are there for a reason.
Explorers are not tourists, and tourists are not explorers. Your inability to differentiate between them says much.
ROTFLMAO. Using this 'logic' - someone who takes the QE2 from Europe to the US is no different from those who sailed on the Mayflower, and someone who takes a safari is indistinguishable from David Livingstone. It's nonsensical statement like this which are prima facie evidence of your utter lack of a clue.
Certainly - but that doesn't make the tourists that round out the rest of the passenger manifest researchers and explorers.
Start with virtually every word you've written - you won't be far off.
Evidence of cluelessness - inability to differentiate between fantasy, metaphysical handwaving, and reality.
This is one of those fictional/metaphysical bits - where you create a nonstandard useage of a word and use it as the basis of an argument.
Metaphysical masturbation - the precise kind of rhetoric that has held back actual exploration for decades.
I'd be happier if you and whole bunch of other folks would learn to tell the difference between Star Trek and mundane reality.
Those high tech gadgets are considered hogs not because of the gross amount of power they consume, but because they are powered 24/7, whether they are in use or not. Sure my dryer (if it were electric rather than gas) would consume more power than my PC - but my dryer is only running when there are clothes in it being dried. OTOH - the average 'always on' PC is eating power even while the owner is sleeping or at work. The 'always one' TV eats power even when nobody it watching it. Etc... etc...
I'm not a yuppie, or affluent, or yard-obsessed. And I *still* wouldn't want one of those giant boxes on my property.
I say you have no clue because you cannot reliably differentiate between the (very) few facts and (very) many opinions you have posted.
That would be me - who has actively researched the issues for nearly thirty years now. It isn't you - who constantly relies on rhetoric, wishful thinking, and metaphysics in place of facts.
And the total area of the physical surveys, when compared with the total area of the Moon - is vanishingly small. Worse yet, what physical surveys we have done can only be described as cursory when one is in an extremely charitable mood.
I have read up on the Lunar Prospector - and am quite aware of what it accomplished. Equally I am aware (as you are not) with what it *didn't* accomplish and with what what cannot be accomplished by remote observation. For example - anything more than from a few centimeters down to a meter or so (depending on the instrument), is completely hidden from Prospector. For another example - while Prospector did discover large concentrations of hydrogen, we have no real idea what form that hydrogen is in. The odds favor, slightly, that it is some form of water (possibly as ice, possibly bound in a mineral) - but that is by no means a certainty.
The professional and academic attempts haven't stopped. Biosphere II was a grand stunt carried out by eco-wizards - and died when they discovered that their grand fantasies weren't in sync with the real world.
There's no need to go underwater, you can accomplish the testing just fine in a warehouse or hangar. Going underwater increases the cost and risk with no accompnying increase in return.
So? That doesn't change what I said one bit. I use Coleman camping equipment when I head out a campground, my friend uses Coleman camping equipment at the top of highest mountains in the world - despite the commonality of equipment, there is still a vast gulf between us. NASA's use for Rutan's vehicles is as carriers for testing scale models... I.E. headed out to the campground.
ROTFL. Marketing buzzwords having nothing to do with reality. It's trek/hippy weenies like yourself that have held back space exploration for decades with your unrealistic expectations and metaphysical rhetoric.
You haven't the foggiest clue about exploration, New Space (alt.space), or NASA.