... and it's not for the reasons the article suggests. First off, did you notice the incident of nepotism the article mentioned? Let me tell you, it's very common. I've worked with publishers, IMHO, most are totally corrupt. Many focus on only two things, fighting over authors of bestsellers and giving the remaining editing, management and writing jobs to friends and family. The golden age of Sci-Fi happened because no mainstream entrenched publishers would touch the stuff. Fortunately there were pulp publications. Most publishers today are as ethical as, say, the members of the BSA, MPAA and RIAA. These people can't produce good work because they are rotten to the core. For a good example of this, simply compare Prentice Hall to O'Reilly. (It's a shame Tim, that you've let it get too big.)
However, there is hope. The net is obviously revolutionizing publishing. These dinosaurs are in their very last days. Yippee!
As for the article, from my perspective, the author neglected the entire cyberpunk movement, therefore failed to appreciate the close cutting edge of Sci-Fi.
Can't Pop-Sci make well formed web pages? Sigh, it's like watching someone pull a car with a horse.
With all due respect sir, I still feel that you've failed to either appreciate or address the actual point of my reply directly. Here, let me quote your own words, "we're not selling these books to the large number of people in the world", which, again, is my point. Indeed, lets boil it down even further, to "You are not selling" as many books as you could. Therefore, it's clearly obvious that you're not helping as many as you could. It's also most likely you're not making as much as you could. Oh, and by the way, I don't just mean financially.
Your prices are surely one reason you are not selling more booklets to more people. Period. We may dance around and around this but I really don't think anything will change or be done as long as authors write for affluence rather than art.
As well, there is a common market fundamentalism that equates high prices with high profits. Think Wal-Mart.
As for market response, perhaps you could lead, rather than just follow?
Furthermore, as for the market, I believe people will always seek maximal value. The reason the PC platform did so well had to do with its value being greater than that of the Mac platform. The sole reason for this, I believe, was the lack of open standards on the part of Apple's management. In a word, greed. In my humble opinion, I believe you to be suffering from exactly the same ineffective market philosophy.
First off, I'm a writer too and I also would like to be fairly compensated. However, two points perhaps you might consider.
One, why should someone pay ten dollars for a book that might only be worth five to them. Or, in other words, why are author's (creator's) financial needs more important than their audience's requirements and ability to pay?
Two, the economics of publishing include the economics of scale. By setting the price point at the point of maximum return relies on many assumptions. I have found that products priced very low, often become much more popular than can be anticipated. Enough so that, in the end, the author actually makes much more. I believe many media and online efforts (MMGs esp) fail due to excessively high prices. Many senior managers, the type who make these decisions, simply cannot appreciate the budget perspectives of their customers. This will get worse as the gap between rich and poor grows and globalization increases.
Is it really so hard to understand that ten dollars US is more than a day's labour for most of the world.
Of course, you are writing for the Mac, so I doubt high prices would be of much concern,;~)
I believe that the cost of manufacturing goods will fall close to zero soon. Most economists agree that cost is based solely on human time and or effort. When machines can do all of the labour, prices for manufactured goods will become insignificant.
IMHO, it's best you find creative or service work that cannot possibly be done by a machine, and do it quickly.
Yah, I know about the physics thing, but after playing Q3A for some years, I'm convinced that there was more to it than that. I suspect that this motion blur thing may explain why I prefer 125 fps to anything less, despite the physics of the game engine. As well, I've been told over and over that it can't make a visible difference, but my eyes say different. Of course, that's just my subjective experience.
which may be one of the reasons top Q3A players worked so hard to get 125 fps
"Even there I adjust the video settings so that I get the famed "125 FPS" consistently. Now I don't crank things down like some of the pros do, and even as far as some I've seen first hand, but I do have them down a bit for frame rates." http://www.planetquake.com/features/rantsnraves/rn r-00-12-12_b.shtml
I'll assume you meant, "deterrent" and, furthermore, I'll assume you've never done anything despite "deterrents".
Actually, it's an old argument and one that has been clearly shown to be relatively valueless. It's commonly known as "the carrot or the stick." For a clear example of the uselessness of the stick method, simply imagine two schools, one uses carrots, the other sticks. Which would you send your child to?
By the way, in my personal experience and humble opinion, vengeance and violence are only used by those who are simply too incompetent to adopt a more mature and responsible methodology.
On this note, to me it seems commonsensical that responsibility for crimes by juveniles should be visited upon the juvenile and their guardians. No?
I'm terribly sorry to have to be the one to inform you of this, but PDF sucks. Perhaps it's proprietary existence just isn't well enough understood yet?
With all due respect to Backgammon, Chess and Id, the best game I've ever played is Go. It's easy to learn but takes a lifetime to master. As well, it's deep enough to force a player to actual think all most all of the time. With it's handicap system, even beginners can offer masters a challenging game enjoyable to both.
Interestingly enough, it remains the one game that cannot be won by brute force number crunching. Even an average player can beat the best Go programs. As such, I conisder it to be a useful tool in the search for meaningingful computing.
Oh, btw, just how much revenue does four building size billboards generate? Can I show movies with my house? How about cloaking entire buildings? Or color co-ordinating an entire city (think pink singapore or say, san fran)?
Actually, I totally appreciate your perspective. In general, I agree, trying to change people or the system is futile. I don't expect things to change nor do I write just because I'm angry. I write because it's a part of my life to struggle against evil. Whereas I don't expect others to change, I do expect myself to. By working against the common grain, I encounter much resistance. This strengthens me. It's similar to weight training but in this sense, I'm working towards a stronger sense of conscience and a deeper sense of awareness and consciousness. For a better explanation of my perspective, try looking into a book called "In Search of the Miraculous" by P. D. Ouespensky. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0156 445085/002-9332938-7326441?v=glance
Reasonable... lol... sure. Please, reread the article.
Let me rephrase this. There was never any real need for any subsidies. These companies spent public funds while generating massive private wealth for a privileged few.
Funny how people get upset when someone steals their bike / car / wallet etc. but they seem ok when others steal thier lives, savings and freedoms.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm, well I still think it may have had more to do with being better than just be wealthier.
BTW, I'm sorry if it sounds condescending or harsh, I didn't intend it to, but I find it's quite hard not to when dealing with such weighty matters.
I'd like to change, "the lack of open standards" to "the failure to base development on open standards".
... and it's not for the reasons the article suggests. First off, did you notice the incident of nepotism the article mentioned? Let me tell you, it's very common. I've worked with publishers, IMHO, most are totally corrupt. Many focus on only two things, fighting over authors of bestsellers and giving the remaining editing, management and writing jobs to friends and family. The golden age of Sci-Fi happened because no mainstream entrenched publishers would touch the stuff. Fortunately there were pulp publications. Most publishers today are as ethical as, say, the members of the BSA, MPAA and RIAA. These people can't produce good work because they are rotten to the core. For a good example of this, simply compare Prentice Hall to O'Reilly. (It's a shame Tim, that you've let it get too big.)
However, there is hope. The net is obviously revolutionizing publishing. These dinosaurs are in their very last days. Yippee!
As for the article, from my perspective, the author neglected the entire cyberpunk movement, therefore failed to appreciate the close cutting edge of Sci-Fi.
Can't Pop-Sci make well formed web pages? Sigh, it's like watching someone pull a car with a horse.
In rereading this, I've come to the conclusion that a better term would have been elitism, rather than greed.
With all due respect sir, I still feel that you've failed to either appreciate or address the actual point of my reply directly. Here, let me quote your own words, "we're not selling these books to the large number of people in the world", which, again, is my point. Indeed, lets boil it down even further, to "You are not selling" as many books as you could. Therefore, it's clearly obvious that you're not helping as many as you could. It's also most likely you're not making as much as you could. Oh, and by the way, I don't just mean financially.
Your prices are surely one reason you are not selling more booklets to more people. Period. We may dance around and around this but I really don't think anything will change or be done as long as authors write for affluence rather than art.
As well, there is a common market fundamentalism that equates high prices with high profits. Think Wal-Mart.
As for market response, perhaps you could lead, rather than just follow?
Furthermore, as for the market, I believe people will always seek maximal value. The reason the PC platform did so well had to do with its value being greater than that of the Mac platform. The sole reason for this, I believe, was the lack of open standards on the part of Apple's management. In a word, greed. In my humble opinion, I believe you to be suffering from exactly the same ineffective market philosophy.
First off, I'm a writer too and I also would like to be fairly compensated. However, two points perhaps you might consider.
;~)
One, why should someone pay ten dollars for a book that might only be worth five to them. Or, in other words, why are author's (creator's) financial needs more important than their audience's requirements and ability to pay?
Two, the economics of publishing include the economics of scale. By setting the price point at the point of maximum return relies on many assumptions. I have found that products priced very low, often become much more popular than can be anticipated. Enough so that, in the end, the author actually makes much more. I believe many media and online efforts (MMGs esp) fail due to excessively high prices. Many senior managers, the type who make these decisions, simply cannot appreciate the budget perspectives of their customers. This will get worse as the gap between rich and poor grows and globalization increases.
Is it really so hard to understand that ten dollars US is more than a day's labour for most of the world.
Of course, you are writing for the Mac, so I doubt high prices would be of much concern,
Try reading "A Canticle for Leibowitz"
8 &edition=us&q=Daniel+Joseph+Min+
by Walter M. Miller Jr.
IMHO, the most profound post-apocalyptic novel I've read.
By the way, it's just 19 Days & Counting, according to Daniel Joseph Min
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-
http://tinyurl.com/4cjx5[google.com]
I believe that the cost of manufacturing goods will fall close to zero soon. Most economists agree that cost is based solely on human time and or effort. When machines can do all of the labour, prices for manufactured goods will become insignificant.
IMHO, it's best you find creative or service work that cannot possibly be done by a machine, and do it quickly.
Dood, please, don't waste your mod points on me, find someone who cares.
Yah, I know about the physics thing, but after playing Q3A for some years, I'm convinced that there was more to it than that. I suspect that this motion blur thing may explain why I prefer 125 fps to anything less, despite the physics of the game engine. As well, I've been told over and over that it can't make a visible difference, but my eyes say different. Of course, that's just my subjective experience.
which may be one of the reasons top Q3A players worked so hard to get 125 fps
n r-00-12-12_b.shtml
"Even there I adjust the video settings so that I get the famed "125 FPS" consistently. Now I don't crank things down like some of the pros do, and even as far as some I've seen first hand, but I do have them down a bit for frame rates."
http://www.planetquake.com/features/rantsnraves/r
Obviously from your lofty position, a Technical Writer, who works with PDFs daily, wouldn't have any perspective on this issue.
People who feel the need to resort to insulting others speak volumes only of themselves.
ouch, sorry
I'll assume you meant, "deterrent" and, furthermore, I'll assume you've never done anything despite "deterrents".
Actually, it's an old argument and one that has been clearly shown to be relatively valueless. It's commonly known as "the carrot or the stick." For a clear example of the uselessness of the stick method, simply imagine two schools, one uses carrots, the other sticks. Which would you send your child to?
By the way, in my personal experience and humble opinion, vengeance and violence are only used by those who are simply too incompetent to adopt a more mature and responsible methodology.
On this note, to me it seems commonsensical that responsibility for crimes by juveniles should be visited upon the juvenile and their guardians. No?
I'm terribly sorry to have to be the one to inform you of this, but PDF sucks. Perhaps it's proprietary existence just isn't well enough understood yet?
and, "think all most all of the time. With it's handicap", should be, "think almost all of the time. With its handicap".
;~)
Sorry, sometimes I'm seriously syntactically challenged.
Of course, that should be, "As such, I consider it to be ..."
With all due respect to Backgammon, Chess and Id, the best game I've ever played is Go. It's easy to learn but takes a lifetime to master. As well, it's deep enough to force a player to actual think all most all of the time. With it's handicap system, even beginners can offer masters a challenging game enjoyable to both.
;~)
American Go Association
http://www.usgo.org/index.asp
International Go Federation
http://www.nihonkiin.or.jp/igf/index.htm
The Interactive Way To Go
(excellent tutorial)
http://playgo.to/interactive/
Tips for Learning Go
http://go.kestrel.nu/
Interestingly enough, it remains the one game that cannot be won by brute force number crunching. Even an average player can beat the best Go programs. As such, I conisder it to be a useful tool in the search for meaningingful computing.
Go is a whole new challenge
http://www.aaai.org/AITopics/html/go.html\
If you don't Go, you'll never get anywhere!
SYSTEM HALT! Error #1 ~ NUL Inevitable, endless, eternal Wine Is Not Emulator argument
I would suggest we're still a decade or so from anything like 'real' looking PC graphics.
... real, like the crap in my pants from playing D3? IMNSHO, It's real enough already. It can only get "realer".
Sheesh
Thanks Carmack, sweet engine. You are da shit dood!
Lemme tell ya, this idea's gunna work great in Calgary!
Mean annual sunshine duration is 2200 hours
http://idmp.entpe.fr/stations/cdn01/cdn01.html
Oh, btw, just how much revenue does four building size billboards generate?
Can I show movies with my house?
How about cloaking entire buildings?
Or color co-ordinating an entire city (think pink singapore or say, san fran)?
oh boy, the future looks bright
... we could enlighten the world.
The perfect answer is because we are too afraid to sacrifice our security, therefore we are unable to earn our freedom.
Of course, it's just way too easy to blame others. Just remember that, the next time you sell out by working for or purchasing crap from corporations.
We're here, because we deserve to be here. It can't change if we don't.
Actually, I totally appreciate your perspective. In general, I agree, trying to change people or the system is futile. I don't expect things to change nor do I write just because I'm angry. I write because it's a part of my life to struggle against evil. Whereas I don't expect others to change, I do expect myself to. By working against the common grain, I encounter much resistance. This strengthens me. It's similar to weight training but in this sense, I'm working towards a stronger sense of conscience and a deeper sense of awareness and consciousness. For a better explanation of my perspective, try looking into a book called "In Search of the Miraculous" by P. D. Ouespensky.6 445085/002-9332938-7326441?v=glance
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/015
Reasonable ... lol ... sure. Please, reread the article.
Let me rephrase this. There was never any real need for any subsidies. These companies spent public funds while generating massive private wealth for a privileged few.
Funny how people get upset when someone steals their bike / car / wallet etc. but they seem ok when others steal thier lives, savings and freedoms.
Well, enjoy yourself. You seem quite good at it.