Precheck does not let you "pay $100 and bypass it [TSA security] completely!" All it does is let you leave computers, liquids (within TSA guidelines) etc in your bag and not take off shoes, belts, etc. Your stuff is still x-rayed, you still go through a metal detector; the big advantages you're in a line with people who actually understand the drill and don't screw up the process by bringing in a bottle of water, etc and the line is shorter.
To do this, you go through a background check and TSA interview, plus pay $100. It's an outgrowth of the SENTRI and Global Entry programs, which let you avoid the long immigration lines when returning to the US. And yes, it's worth every penny if you fly a lot.
The difficulties of making sure things are right occur whenever any manufacturer begins making a generic. They deal with it all the time with great success.
True, but with off patent drugs the information is available to produce a copy; my point was if more countries institute compulsory licensing of patented drugs companies will seek ways to make it as hard as possible to determine the exact makeup of a drug. In short, it's to their advantage to create doubt as to wether the copy actually mimics the real thing.
As for any regulatory capture, they obviously failed at that in India. *I'm sure the Indian government that has authorized the compulsory license is not going to require re-approval based on trace elements.
No doubt they won't. In fact, if something goes wrong (I'm not saying it will) they've effectively given the drug company a pass on any responsibility for the outcomes. To me, this is the question - If companies succeed in getting changes to patent law to keep drug compositions secret; how much risk is a country willing to take to make drugs available at low costs without assurances their manufacturing process produces a copy that is equally effective and has no side effects beyond those for the patented version? \
They might try, but I doubt they'd succeed. The actual patent is nearly useless these days as a disclosure anyway. The only way to keep it a secret would be to make sure nobody ever gets a sample (that is, not sell it at all) and make sure never to actually manufacture any (so an industrial spy can't observe the process).
True. Nothing is really secret. The real challenge is to be sure you actually got the components and mix correct; clue enough may not be good enough to ensure it has the same effect on patients or that their are no new side effects from a slightly different formulation. There may not be, but the uncertainty alone may preclude you from producing it without doing trials first unless you are willing to potential put patients at risk in return for saving money.
Ethics aside, I would not be surprised by anything a company would do to protect its drug profits; after all some companies argue that generics, if they do not include the exact same type and proportion of trace elements, should be required to undergo testing and re-approval since they do not match the originally approved drug.
I wonder:
On the opposite side, if the drug companies no longer develop new treatments; would a non profit based entity (govt, charity) do the work? and if they would then perhaps that is whats best for humanity?
depends. The US government does a lot of research on drugs for extremely rare problems and pay companies to develop stockpiles of for the government; primarily with an eye towards military use.
If they choose not to market a drug in India at all, I guess the government will save a lot of deliberation when they approve a local company to make the generic. It's not like they can't figure out how it's being made.
I would think, if such tactics become more common, drug companies will push for greater secrecy around patens so the basic formulation would not be available publicly until it goes off patent. Companies could try to copy at the risk of getting it wrong; or have to run trials to ensure their formulation is effective and safe.
No amount of marketing can change the number of people who need a drug. That is fixed. If the number of sales is less than this number, that can be fixed by educating doctors. If the number of sales is greater than or equal to the number of people who need a drug, more marketing just leads to overprescription. Whatever savings you're imagining here are subsidized by encouraging people to take drugs they don't need. That's bad all around.
Marketing, in the US, is designed to develop a pull from the patient, rather than a push by the doctor. Due to changes in the law, drug companies now want to create demand, for patients who need a drug type, for their prescription drugs. It's about market share, not increasing the size of the market.
When I was in Chicago, a lawyer friend advised going to court for minor traffic offenses id you had the time - dockets were so overloaded that judges would usually simply dismiss things like an illegal turn simply because they had more important cases to push through, or the cop would often not show up leading to a dismissal. if everyone that got a traffic summons went to court the system would crash almost instantly; which is why fines need to be low enough to get people to say its easier to pay or offer traffic school to keep it off your record.
You quoted that sentence, then claimed I had reached the same conclusion in my later statements. But what you did not realize (and which I then pointed out), was that the conclusion you accused me of arriving at later was implicit in that original statement all along.
Because that is what you did - you implied you get unfettered access off campus; and then later claim differently. of course, rather than discuss that, you launch, as usual, another ad hominem attack rather than take the time to think things through.Oh well...
You were quoting (and I was re-quoting) my original comment on the matter, which made my point! And you call even referring to THAT, "backtracking"!
Of course I used it - rather than paraphrase your statements, I juxtaposed it with your later ones that clearly back away from your original position, to illustrate how you eventually came to agreeing with me; even though you insist you aren't and that my original position was yours.
It's almost TOO ridiculous to be funny!
I wouldn't call your logic ridiculous, I'd use flawed; but you are free to characterize your argument any way you want. It's good you can laugh at yourself; far too fewe people can do that.
"Just like anybody off-campus could get" clearly implies not literally unlimited, and not absolutely "unfettered", because the average off-campus ISP does not provide infinite bandwidth, or 100.000% of the internet's content.
There you go, backtracking again. First you say unfettered, and your "...just like anybody off-campus could get." implied that was available; after I say it's not unreasonable to control bandwidth use you say, "Of course, I never meant totally unfettered, nor, as you no add, not literally unlimited." Which, as I have pointed out, was my original point.
One problem with subsidies in the US is that if you pay full price for your phone, your monthly bill isn't reduced to compensate for not having the subsidy.
In other countries when you buy a phone subsidy-free you pay less per month. This is common sense, yet the US providers don't do it. I'd rather pay full price for my phone and pay less per month. Basically if you keep your phone for longer than 2-3 years, you are now losing financially because you're monthly cost includes a subsidy you're not taking advantage of.
that's because US companies would prefer to look you into a known revenue stream than have you jim in and out based on the cost of service. A look ensures a consistent revenue stream, whereas no contract service could result in more churn and higher costs per customer. In addition, once a customer goes off contract they would want a discount, lowering the revenue and profits; especially if customers forgo getting a new phone every two years. Delaying purchases hurt the cell phone manufacturers, so the subsidy program works for them as well.
In some states it is illegal to refuse the test, but in a roundabout way where the fine print of driver's license says "refuse test, and you lose your license". So there isn't a practical "refusal" option everywhere.
I think that's part of the "implied consent" part of the law; refusal results in license suspension.
No, you are the one failing to grasp. Look dude, I'll put it as simply as I can: if we were actually making the same point, why were you arguing with me in the first place? Was it just a mistake on your part, or were you baiting me, or did you truly not understand? Because it almost has to be one of those three.
Actually, no. Let me make this real simple:
At the start, I said it was not reasonable to expect to be able to browse whatever, whenever, that a uni's IT staff had to be able to make sure bandwidth is available for real academic needs.
You replied:
Nonsense. If you are a university student, and you are PAYING for access, then you deserve to get access. Which means yes, I would want exactly that... an unfettered Internet connection, just like anybody off-campus could get.
(as a side note you said i was someone who wanted to censor the library (ad-homenum) and then made up some straw man about the US mail.)
After a long and circuitous discussion you then said that unfettered doesn't mean completely unfettered - i.e. it is reasonable to manage access or use of the resource - which off course is what I originally said.
I'm not sure what isn't clear in my original position nor that you eventually reached the same conclusion.
"Of course, the best choice is not to drive while you are impaired, even if you are below the legal limit."
My rule of thumb. I don't drive for 1 hour per shot/beer. Since it usually takes me 30-45min to drink a beer, by the time I'm done, I'm almost ready to go.
A ggod rule. I also add to wait at least an hour after the last one before driving, along with limiting my intake i.e a six hour party doesn't mean a six pack.
Refusing the test may raise suspicion by the cop that you have things that aren't in order.
And if it's positive then go for the blood test.
The breath analyzers are better today than they were before, but there's still room for inaccuracy. However if you know you are sober you shouldn't have any problem taking the test. The accuracy problems are usually when it's the question of the legal limit or not. And here the legal limit is 0.02%.
In some states, the legal limit is irrelevant to being charged and convicted for DUI or DWI.
Of course, the best choice is not to drive while you are impaired, even if you are below the legal limit.
If I get pulled over (and this does vary by state)...and I know I'm toast, on his advice, I won't say a thing, won't answer a question, I will NOT take any roadside tests (that's just letting them gather evidence against you on camera) and refuse breath or blood tests.
I'll politely hold my hands out for them to put the cuffs on me, and quietly go with them...and call my atty when I get to the police station.
The main thing to do...is NOT give them any evidence....or as little as possible.
That's the same advice I get from lawyer and cop friends. The cops I know say your first comment should be "I want my lawyer, since anything you say up to that point is fair game.
How do you figure they aren't taking on any of the risk when going with a traditional publisher? As I understand it the money they are fronted, much like the music industry, is a loan and is paid back on sales of the book
However, the author's book advance is generally non-repayable - so if the book flops the author gets to keep the advance anyway; essentially a no-risk proposition for him or her..
The costs of having artwork done and editing done aren't huge. There are even editors that are willing to take on this sort fo work for a small percentage of the sales. Small being way less than the 50+% normal publishing houses take. Some authors are trying this, others are hiring agents independent of the publishing houses and allowing them to handle getting editors and art lined up.
Lots of models being tried and written about -> http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/ Some very interesting reading in that blog IMO from an author who has been publsihed by the NYC publishers and by Amazon. Guess which one earns him really good money?
I agree the model is changing and as the distribution channels change the money split will change as well. Of course, the downside is the barriers to entry are so low that it will be harder to stand out from the crowd; or compete with people who are basically willing to give away the services unless you are a really well known name in the business.
Unless, of course, you're guilty and looking for plausible deniability......
But then, if you aren't guilty, take the breath test and if you fail, ask for the blood test.......otherwise, you have to take a ride to the station for the blood test, and all of that other inconvenience.
If you fail you'll get a ride to the station anyway. The advisability of refusing a test aside; it's still not that hard to get convicted of DUI based on other evidence. I served on a DUI jury, and all a breath test would have done is shorten the time it took to reach a verdict from 2 days to probably 2 hours. We took our job seriously and debated each piece of evidence, so not having a breath gets probably helps a case but it is not a slam dunk acquittal by a long shot.
The editing and artwork as well as proofreading can all be hired out as works for hire rather than using a traditional publisher that leaches a percentage of every sale. Why should an author pay that overhead more than once?
An author can - but then they take on the risk of failure, as well as the upside if it's a hit. If they decide to go to a publisher, then why not view the author as simply doing work for hire and just pay a flat fee? After all, why should they get a cut of every sale instead of a flat fee; especially since they the on none of the failure risk but get a cut of the upside?
"Wanting to browse whatever whenever is not a reasonable request - and IT has to be sure that bandwidth is available for people really doing academic work - not to ensure we all get our/. fill"
to which you replied:
Nonsense. If you are a university student, and you are PAYING for access, then you deserve to get access. Which means yes, I would want exactly that... an unfettered Internet connection, just like anybody off-campus could get.
and then followed a circuitous path, including side trips down ad-homenum and straw man lane, to get back to restating my original point by saying that when you said unfettered internet access you didn't mean completely unfettered - which was of course my exact original point.
Ignoring the odd grammatical construction of "completely unfettered" (something unfettered is well, unfettered, or it is not unfettered, sort of like there's no small minority) it's pretty clear you are backtracking.
So yes, I'm not agreeing with you - you're agreeing with me.
But that's OK. As I said before, if you want to win, fine. I really don't care; although it seems important to you.
Not really. These days, you are expected to hire an agent, who is also your editor. Thanks to massive layoffs in Publishing, you won't get a lot of editing. The long tail doesn't help either. Bottom line is that you're on your own in either case, but in only one do you control your destiny.
Yup. My editor, who was outstanding, lost her gig in the name of cost reductions. Really sucks since she was very very good at it and turned a rambling set of words into something that actually was readable and made sense.
Well he got one thing right: "All the costs are the people in the publisher's HQ..." Exactly. So why don't authors just upload their e-books and cut out publishers all together?
Probably because some of those cost are for editors, proof readers, illustrators, cover designers; all of whom play a crucial role in producing an outstanding or even good, for that matter, book. There may be a lot of extra costs that can be cut, but a writer alone, except in rare cases, can't produce a work nearly as good, or even good, without the help of others. Witness the proliferation of garbage titles now that the cost of entry is nearly zero.
I don't think either your arguments or "conclusions" will convince any other Slashdot readers any more than they have convinced me.
There you again again, backtracking after you agreed with me and now somehow deciding what you said wasn't what you mean. You really should think through your comments before you post because you do seem to be a bit more literate than the average/. poster; but you do seem a bit unable to do so and let your fingers do the walking before the brain has fully engaged. No worries
Apologies, I know I stated that I would not reply anymore, but I simply could not resist this one last time.
You have simply proven my point. *I* could not be trolling YOU, because it is you who keep insisting on arguing with me and asserting that I stated things I actually haven't.
So THAT argument, at least, you definitively lose.
No need to apologize. It's interesting that you insist on winning even though, after much back and forth, you simply restate my original position an then claim it was yours. If you must win, fine, I'm glad you just finally agreed with my reasonable position.
Of course, I could be snarking and say since I reached the same conclusion as you did with respect to you that you had to me and said you were either trolling or a dumbass as well, and now you say you aren't trolling that only leaves one conclusion.
Slashdot Mirror
To do this, you go through a background check and TSA interview, plus pay $100. It's an outgrowth of the SENTRI and Global Entry programs, which let you avoid the long immigration lines when returning to the US. And yes, it's worth every penny if you fly a lot.
The difficulties of making sure things are right occur whenever any manufacturer begins making a generic. They deal with it all the time with great success.
True, but with off patent drugs the information is available to produce a copy; my point was if more countries institute compulsory licensing of patented drugs companies will seek ways to make it as hard as possible to determine the exact makeup of a drug. In short, it's to their advantage to create doubt as to wether the copy actually mimics the real thing.
As for any regulatory capture, they obviously failed at that in India. *I'm sure the Indian government that has authorized the compulsory license is not going to require re-approval based on trace elements.
No doubt they won't. In fact, if something goes wrong (I'm not saying it will) they've effectively given the drug company a pass on any responsibility for the outcomes. To me, this is the question - If companies succeed in getting changes to patent law to keep drug compositions secret; how much risk is a country willing to take to make drugs available at low costs without assurances their manufacturing process produces a copy that is equally effective and has no side effects beyond those for the patented version? \
They might try, but I doubt they'd succeed. The actual patent is nearly useless these days as a disclosure anyway. The only way to keep it a secret would be to make sure nobody ever gets a sample (that is, not sell it at all) and make sure never to actually manufacture any (so an industrial spy can't observe the process).
True. Nothing is really secret. The real challenge is to be sure you actually got the components and mix correct; clue enough may not be good enough to ensure it has the same effect on patients or that their are no new side effects from a slightly different formulation. There may not be, but the uncertainty alone may preclude you from producing it without doing trials first unless you are willing to potential put patients at risk in return for saving money.
Ethics aside, I would not be surprised by anything a company would do to protect its drug profits; after all some companies argue that generics, if they do not include the exact same type and proportion of trace elements, should be required to undergo testing and re-approval since they do not match the originally approved drug.
I wonder: On the opposite side, if the drug companies no longer develop new treatments; would a non profit based entity (govt, charity) do the work? and if they would then perhaps that is whats best for humanity?
depends. The US government does a lot of research on drugs for extremely rare problems and pay companies to develop stockpiles of for the government; primarily with an eye towards military use.
If they choose not to market a drug in India at all, I guess the government will save a lot of deliberation when they approve a local company to make the generic. It's not like they can't figure out how it's being made.
I would think, if such tactics become more common, drug companies will push for greater secrecy around patens so the basic formulation would not be available publicly until it goes off patent. Companies could try to copy at the risk of getting it wrong; or have to run trials to ensure their formulation is effective and safe.
No amount of marketing can change the number of people who need a drug. That is fixed. If the number of sales is less than this number, that can be fixed by educating doctors. If the number of sales is greater than or equal to the number of people who need a drug, more marketing just leads to overprescription. Whatever savings you're imagining here are subsidized by encouraging people to take drugs they don't need. That's bad all around.
Marketing, in the US, is designed to develop a pull from the patient, rather than a push by the doctor. Due to changes in the law, drug companies now want to create demand, for patients who need a drug type, for their prescription drugs. It's about market share, not increasing the size of the market.
When I was in Chicago, a lawyer friend advised going to court for minor traffic offenses id you had the time - dockets were so overloaded that judges would usually simply dismiss things like an illegal turn simply because they had more important cases to push through, or the cop would often not show up leading to a dismissal. if everyone that got a traffic summons went to court the system would crash almost instantly; which is why fines need to be low enough to get people to say its easier to pay or offer traffic school to keep it off your record.
You quoted that sentence, then claimed I had reached the same conclusion in my later statements. But what you did not realize (and which I then pointed out), was that the conclusion you accused me of arriving at later was implicit in that original statement all along.
Because that is what you did - you implied you get unfettered access off campus; and then later claim differently. of course, rather than discuss that, you launch, as usual, another ad hominem attack rather than take the time to think things through.Oh well...
You were quoting (and I was re-quoting) my original comment on the matter, which made my point! And you call even referring to THAT, "backtracking"!
Of course I used it - rather than paraphrase your statements, I juxtaposed it with your later ones that clearly back away from your original position, to illustrate how you eventually came to agreeing with me; even though you insist you aren't and that my original position was yours.
It's almost TOO ridiculous to be funny!
I wouldn't call your logic ridiculous, I'd use flawed; but you are free to characterize your argument any way you want. It's good you can laugh at yourself; far too fewe people can do that.
"Just like anybody off-campus could get" clearly implies not literally unlimited, and not absolutely "unfettered", because the average off-campus ISP does not provide infinite bandwidth, or 100.000% of the internet's content.
There you go, backtracking again. First you say unfettered, and your "...just like anybody off-campus could get." implied that was available; after I say it's not unreasonable to control bandwidth use you say, "Of course, I never meant totally unfettered, nor, as you no add, not literally unlimited." Which, as I have pointed out, was my original point.
One problem with subsidies in the US is that if you pay full price for your phone, your monthly bill isn't reduced to compensate for not having the subsidy.
In other countries when you buy a phone subsidy-free you pay less per month. This is common sense, yet the US providers don't do it. I'd rather pay full price for my phone and pay less per month. Basically if you keep your phone for longer than 2-3 years, you are now losing financially because you're monthly cost includes a subsidy you're not taking advantage of.
that's because US companies would prefer to look you into a known revenue stream than have you jim in and out based on the cost of service. A look ensures a consistent revenue stream, whereas no contract service could result in more churn and higher costs per customer. In addition, once a customer goes off contract they would want a discount, lowering the revenue and profits; especially if customers forgo getting a new phone every two years. Delaying purchases hurt the cell phone manufacturers, so the subsidy program works for them as well.
In some states it is illegal to refuse the test, but in a roundabout way where the fine print of driver's license says "refuse test, and you lose your license". So there isn't a practical "refusal" option everywhere.
I think that's part of the "implied consent" part of the law; refusal results in license suspension.
No, you are the one failing to grasp. Look dude, I'll put it as simply as I can: if we were actually making the same point, why were you arguing with me in the first place? Was it just a mistake on your part, or were you baiting me, or did you truly not understand? Because it almost has to be one of those three.
Actually, no. Let me make this real simple:
At the start, I said it was not reasonable to expect to be able to browse whatever, whenever, that a uni's IT staff had to be able to make sure bandwidth is available for real academic needs.
You replied:
Nonsense. If you are a university student, and you are PAYING for access, then you deserve to get access. Which means yes, I would want exactly that... an unfettered Internet connection, just like anybody off-campus could get.
(as a side note you said i was someone who wanted to censor the library (ad-homenum) and then made up some straw man about the US mail.)
After a long and circuitous discussion you then said that unfettered doesn't mean completely unfettered - i.e. it is reasonable to manage access or use of the resource - which off course is what I originally said.
I'm not sure what isn't clear in my original position nor that you eventually reached the same conclusion.
"Of course, the best choice is not to drive while you are impaired, even if you are below the legal limit."
My rule of thumb. I don't drive for 1 hour per shot/beer. Since it usually takes me 30-45min to drink a beer, by the time I'm done, I'm almost ready to go.
A ggod rule. I also add to wait at least an hour after the last one before driving, along with limiting my intake i.e a six hour party doesn't mean a six pack.
Refusing the test may raise suspicion by the cop that you have things that aren't in order.
And if it's positive then go for the blood test.
The breath analyzers are better today than they were before, but there's still room for inaccuracy. However if you know you are sober you shouldn't have any problem taking the test. The accuracy problems are usually when it's the question of the legal limit or not. And here the legal limit is 0.02%.
In some states, the legal limit is irrelevant to being charged and convicted for DUI or DWI.
Of course, the best choice is not to drive while you are impaired, even if you are below the legal limit.
Yep...I've asked lawyer friends...
If I get pulled over (and this does vary by state)...and I know I'm toast, on his advice, I won't say a thing, won't answer a question, I will NOT take any roadside tests (that's just letting them gather evidence against you on camera) and refuse breath or blood tests.
I'll politely hold my hands out for them to put the cuffs on me, and quietly go with them...and call my atty when I get to the police station.
The main thing to do...is NOT give them any evidence....or as little as possible.
That's the same advice I get from lawyer and cop friends. The cops I know say your first comment should be "I want my lawyer, since anything you say up to that point is fair game.
How do you figure they aren't taking on any of the risk when going with a traditional publisher? As I understand it the money they are fronted, much like the music industry, is a loan and is paid back on sales of the book
However, the author's book advance is generally non-repayable - so if the book flops the author gets to keep the advance anyway; essentially a no-risk proposition for him or her. .
The costs of having artwork done and editing done aren't huge. There are even editors that are willing to take on this sort fo work for a small percentage of the sales. Small being way less than the 50+% normal publishing houses take. Some authors are trying this, others are hiring agents independent of the publishing houses and allowing them to handle getting editors and art lined up.
Lots of models being tried and written about -> http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/ Some very interesting reading in that blog IMO from an author who has been publsihed by the NYC publishers and by Amazon. Guess which one earns him really good money?
I agree the model is changing and as the distribution channels change the money split will change as well. Of course, the downside is the barriers to entry are so low that it will be harder to stand out from the crowd; or compete with people who are basically willing to give away the services unless you are a really well known name in the business.
Unless, of course, you're guilty and looking for plausible deniability......
But then, if you aren't guilty, take the breath test and if you fail, ask for the blood test.......otherwise, you have to take a ride to the station for the blood test, and all of that other inconvenience.
If you fail you'll get a ride to the station anyway. The advisability of refusing a test aside; it's still not that hard to get convicted of DUI based on other evidence. I served on a DUI jury, and all a breath test would have done is shorten the time it took to reach a verdict from 2 days to probably 2 hours. We took our job seriously and debated each piece of evidence, so not having a breath gets probably helps a case but it is not a slam dunk acquittal by a long shot.
The editing and artwork as well as proofreading can all be hired out as works for hire rather than using a traditional publisher that leaches a percentage of every sale. Why should an author pay that overhead more than once?
An author can - but then they take on the risk of failure, as well as the upside if it's a hit. If they decide to go to a publisher, then why not view the author as simply doing work for hire and just pay a flat fee? After all, why should they get a cut of every sale instead of a flat fee; especially since they the on none of the failure risk but get a cut of the upside?
I have made my points,
Correct. Which ultimately was exactly the same as my original point although for some reason you can't seem to grasp that. Oh well.
I am done here.
Ok, but you keep backtracking and coming back. Oh well, Cheers...
YOU were not agreeing with ME at all,
Let's review the bidding:
I said:
"Wanting to browse whatever whenever is not a reasonable request - and IT has to be sure that bandwidth is available for people really doing academic work - not to ensure we all get our /. fill"
to which you replied:
Nonsense. If you are a university student, and you are PAYING for access, then you deserve to get access. Which means yes, I would want exactly that... an unfettered Internet connection, just like anybody off-campus could get.
and then followed a circuitous path, including side trips down ad-homenum and straw man lane, to get back to restating my original point by saying that when you said unfettered internet access you didn't mean completely unfettered - which was of course my exact original point.
Ignoring the odd grammatical construction of "completely unfettered" (something unfettered is well, unfettered, or it is not unfettered, sort of like there's no small minority) it's pretty clear you are backtracking.
So yes, I'm not agreeing with you - you're agreeing with me.
But that's OK. As I said before, if you want to win, fine. I really don't care; although it seems important to you.
Not really. These days, you are expected to hire an agent, who is also your editor. Thanks to massive layoffs in Publishing, you won't get a lot of editing. The long tail doesn't help either. Bottom line is that you're on your own in either case, but in only one do you control your destiny.
Yup. My editor, who was outstanding, lost her gig in the name of cost reductions. Really sucks since she was very very good at it and turned a rambling set of words into something that actually was readable and made sense.
Well he got one thing right: "All the costs are the people in the publisher's HQ..." Exactly. So why don't authors just upload their e-books and cut out publishers all together?
Probably because some of those cost are for editors, proof readers, illustrators, cover designers; all of whom play a crucial role in producing an outstanding or even good, for that matter, book. There may be a lot of extra costs that can be cut, but a writer alone, except in rare cases, can't produce a work nearly as good, or even good, without the help of others. Witness the proliferation of garbage titles now that the cost of entry is nearly zero.
I don't think either your arguments or "conclusions" will convince any other Slashdot readers any more than they have convinced me.
There you again again, backtracking after you agreed with me and now somehow deciding what you said wasn't what you mean. You really should think through your comments before you post because you do seem to be a bit more literate than the average /. poster; but you do seem a bit unable to do so and let your fingers do the walking before the brain has fully engaged. No worries
Apologies, I know I stated that I would not reply anymore, but I simply could not resist this one last time. You have simply proven my point. *I* could not be trolling YOU, because it is you who keep insisting on arguing with me and asserting that I stated things I actually haven't. So THAT argument, at least, you definitively lose.
No need to apologize. It's interesting that you insist on winning even though, after much back and forth, you simply restate my original position an then claim it was yours. If you must win, fine, I'm glad you just finally agreed with my reasonable position.
Of course, I could be snarking and say since I reached the same conclusion as you did with respect to you that you had to me and said you were either trolling or a dumbass as well, and now you say you aren't trolling that only leaves one conclusion.