I recently published a Speculative Fiction book in March. And when things started to go a little bit south with my publisher, I realized that I had made some critical errors when I signed the contract which I did.
1. They had all my rights. Print, audio, electronic, foreign, etc. 2. They weren't doing anything with the rights except for print. And I was stuck... I couldn't do anything with electronic or audio rights myself.
What I learned:
1. Keep all the rights you can when you sell a manuscript to a publisher. 2. If the publisher wants a particular right, make them justify it. Put "performance metrics" in the contract so that they have to perform with the right given, or it reverts back to the author. And, don't make it open ended. Put a time limit on those rights.
Why?
Authors are realizing that audio and electronic rights are very, very valuable. But so are publishers. They are fighting to keep control of those rights. Audio can be expensive to produce at first, but electronic is nearly without cost. Once the typesetting and formatting is done for the print run, converting the book to e-reader formats is easy. It took me less than a day to convert mine. Every sale after that is pure profit. This is why publishers are scrambling to retain control. In many cases, their business models are not supported by the traditional methods very well, and they need this extra income to stay afloat.
I predict that authors and agents will continue to become more savvy in these areas, and therefore, the contracts they demand of the big publishers will continue to be better written, year after year. Authors will then find themselves protected by contracts which are fair, well written, and sane. This can only help promote technology... and audio will eventually become accepted on all e-readers. That is what I think will happen. Especially if it helps to sell books, no matter what format the book comes in.
I disagree. Every sysadmin I have ever known has made mistakes. Knowing how to bail yourself out is what makes you a great sysadmin. The person behind the previous post denies his/her own human qualities.
One other thing.... avoid doing dangerous admin commands when highly stressed or tired. I once deleted an entire directory I didn't intend to because I forgot the directory was hardlinked to another location.
As a result, 10 Virtual Servers, including a domain controller, suddenly blinked off. I had blown every one of them away in one misguided command.
Did anyone else hear Yoda in that audio clip? I did.... I wonder if the Star Wars folks that characterized Yoda ever heard that audio of Tolkein..... hmmmmmmmmm.
I personnally tire of the religion vs. science debate. I my mind there is no debate. True Religion will Never Never Never contradict True Science.
I am not going to go into all my beliefs, but this one I will share with you... and it is more than a belief. It is TRUE.
God did NOT create the world EX-NILIO... that is He did not create it out of nothing. God formed the earth out of already existant matter. The scriptures prove it. Those that say He created it in 4004 BC out of "nothing" misinterpret the bible. The bible itself, Jewish texts, Egyptian texts, Early Christian texts, eg. Pistis Sophia, The Dead Sea Scrolls, and many many more all say the world was formed from unorganized matter.
So , If the matter existed.....
Sure, life can be found in rock that is 2.5 billion years old. The rocks themselves can be billions of years old.
This does not preclude the possibility that this matter, these "things", could not have been organized into a world at 4004 BC.
The two Ideas are not mutually exclusive.
So the whole problem with this debate, is that neither side has all the facts. I am an avid "student" of the sciences... And also very rooted in my religion. In my mind, there is NO conflict.
And what I feel about Kansas: I would not ever deny the schools the opportunity to teach the THEORY of evolution. (it is a theory). I would also not forbid them to talk about creation theory also. It's just too bad they can't see that they really go together. We really have no idea what method God used to form this earth, or what state the matter that He used was in... obviously, it had previously supported life.
If God had His hand in the previous "usage" of this matter, and used evolution to place life on it, it does not shake my faith in the least. I don't care HOW He did it. I just know that He did... and for a very good purpose: for us.
By the way, so that your flames can be properly aimed, Yes, I AM Mormon... Member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
And for the rest of Christendom that accepts some truth, and disregards the rest, I would encourage you to open your mind.
And I return to one of my original statements, "opportunity cost - for every choice made, there is a consequence". So many of the perceived shortages are in the mind of man and directly affected by man's own bad choices. It stems from untruth and falsehood.
If truth abounded, and mankind would stop warring and oppressing each other, so many of the examples you cite would be non-existant. Tell the Indian that the cow he sees walk by himself is not really his grandfather, and therefore he can eat a little better in the days to come. Tell the warring tribes of africa to make peace and work together, and share resources they have all around them.
So many of the problems we see are of our own making. Just because we have not figured out how to properly use with good stewardship the things we have been given, does not make it God's fault. The promise is real, and still stands: There is enough to spare. We just need to use it more wisely.
You have cited a very low law: "the law of the jungle" (low on the totem pole in regards to importance).
There is a higher law that supercedes it: "Love thy neighbor as thyself".
If this was followed, by every nation and every people, the problems you see on the surface would not exist.
It is the sophist that lies and tells you that "that's just the way it is, and it can't be changed."
What then of hope? Is there no hope in the world? By your posting, I think what you need is hope....
You have been misled by the sophists of the day. You believe what they have been telling you about overcrowding, food shortages, and low natural resources. These are lies perpetuated by those who love and worship money, and would lie to take advantage of his neighbor. They are 120% and absolutely false.
There is enough to take care of ourselves, to take care of our neighbors, and to take care of the poor. The Lord said: "For the earth is full, and there is enough and to spare" DC 104:17.
Absolutely true.... I censor nobody from reading Jon Katz. I am just choosing to no longer read his essays myself.
And to quote my latin/economics teacher from High School: "opportunity cost - for every opportunity taken, there is a cost..." no matter how slight. EVERY single action or choice we make has consequence.
And my "self-censorship", if you wish to call it that, is a decision based on the principle of GIGO - Garbage In, Garbage Out. I tend to think if I keep the garbage Jon writes out of my head, I will be less prone to let the same kind of garbage spread from me to the rest of the world.
I know this is flame-bait, but I will say it anyway. I am against censorship and book burning. You may believe what you want, think what you want, and do what you want. That is your right. A stop sign is there, and you may choose to stop, or choose to drive through it. You can choose to abide by a cinema's policies or you can subvert them by dishonesty and trickery. It is your choice.
But one must be careful when making a sweeping generalization... Not all geeks like porn. Not all geeks like vulgarity. Not all geeks like attitude, and goth, and rebellion.
Jon Katz has brought me to a disgust of the popular usage of the term geek. It is so one-sided. There are plenty of good, clean-cut, anti-porn, honest geeks out there.
Jon Katz is certainly allowed his own opinion. To restrict his opinion would be censorship.
But we also have the right to tune him out. I am tired of the "poor, pitiful, porn-deprived geek syndrome" that he so often writes about.
My thanks to slashdot for allowing us to customize our page to our own tastes... I will be blocking Jon's rantings and filth from this time forth.
There is a real problem here... and it is related to morality and integrity, not necessarily to definitions of words.
Let me use just one of the examples from what you have said, and I quote: "Real hackers don't steal, vandalize or damage."
And at the end of the posting you said: "Hackers don't buy computer games, but they get online anyway, managing to get their hands on registration access codes."
This is somewhat of a contradiction... and it brings truth to the statement that there is no exactly defined division between cracker and hacker. To use an old western movie symbol, There are some who wear white hats, some who wear black hats, and some who wear many shades in between.
Is it not stealing to gain access codes to a game that one has not legitimately purchased?
If the software is not freeware, and is marketed for a price, and the price is not given, then usage is stealing.
This country, and the world for that matter has lost its sense of integrity. The definition of honesty is lost. Not that honesty does not exist, but that people define it to their advantage, and therefore the differences between "the black hat and the white hat" are very blurred.
This is why it is a perception problem... Hacker and Cracker are defined by the people that use them purely on their own perception. Perhaps the usage of the word hacker has taken a connotation it never should have, but how can we blame them now? Every time the media mentions the bad things done, they use the word hacker. I don't think that will ever change now.
And this is also why it is an integrity problem.... had "TRUE HACKERS" never stained their hands in dishonest activity, no matter how slight, the words may have never taken on the shades that they did.
Slashdot Mirror
I recently published a Speculative Fiction book in March. And when things started to go a little bit south with my publisher, I realized that I had made some critical errors when I signed the contract which I did.
1. They had all my rights. Print, audio, electronic, foreign, etc.
2. They weren't doing anything with the rights except for print. And I was stuck... I couldn't do anything with electronic or audio rights myself.
What I learned:
1. Keep all the rights you can when you sell a manuscript to a publisher.
2. If the publisher wants a particular right, make them justify it. Put "performance metrics" in the contract so that they have to perform with the right given, or it reverts back to the author. And, don't make it open ended. Put a time limit on those rights.
Why?
Authors are realizing that audio and electronic rights are very, very valuable. But so are publishers. They are fighting to keep control of those rights. Audio can be expensive to produce at first, but electronic is nearly without cost. Once the typesetting and formatting is done for the print run, converting the book to e-reader formats is easy. It took me less than a day to convert mine. Every sale after that is pure profit. This is why publishers are scrambling to retain control. In many cases, their business models are not supported by the traditional methods very well, and they need this extra income to stay afloat.
I predict that authors and agents will continue to become more savvy in these areas, and therefore, the contracts they demand of the big publishers will continue to be better written, year after year. Authors will then find themselves protected by contracts which are fair, well written, and sane. This can only help promote technology... and audio will eventually become accepted on all e-readers. That is what I think will happen. Especially if it helps to sell books, no matter what format the book comes in.
I disagree. Every sysadmin I have ever known has made mistakes. Knowing how to bail yourself out is what makes you a great sysadmin. The person behind the previous post denies his/her own human qualities.
One other thing.... avoid doing dangerous admin commands when highly stressed or tired. I once deleted an entire directory I didn't intend to because I forgot the directory was hardlinked to another location.
As a result, 10 Virtual Servers, including a domain controller, suddenly blinked off. I had blown every one of them away in one misguided command.
Did anyone else hear Yoda in that audio clip? I did.... I wonder if the Star Wars folks that characterized Yoda ever heard that audio of Tolkein..... hmmmmmmmmm.
I personnally tire of the religion vs. science debate. I my mind there is no debate. True Religion will Never Never Never contradict True Science.
I am not going to go into all my beliefs, but this one I will share with you... and it is more than a belief. It is TRUE.
God did NOT create the world EX-NILIO... that is He did not create it out of nothing. God formed the earth out of already existant matter. The scriptures prove it. Those that say He created it in 4004 BC out of "nothing" misinterpret the bible. The bible itself, Jewish texts, Egyptian texts, Early Christian texts, eg. Pistis Sophia, The Dead Sea Scrolls, and many many more all say the world was formed from unorganized matter.
So , If the matter existed.....
Sure, life can be found in rock that is 2.5 billion years old. The rocks themselves can be billions of years old.
This does not preclude the possibility that this matter, these "things", could not have been organized into a world at 4004 BC.
The two Ideas are not mutually exclusive.
So the whole problem with this debate, is that neither side has all the facts. I am an avid "student" of the sciences... And also very rooted in my religion. In my mind, there is NO conflict.
And what I feel about Kansas: I would not ever deny the schools the opportunity to teach the THEORY of evolution. (it is a theory). I would also not forbid them to talk about creation theory also. It's just too bad they can't see that they really go together. We really have no idea what method God used to form this earth, or what state the matter that He used was in... obviously, it had previously supported life.
If God had His hand in the previous "usage" of this matter, and used evolution to place life on it, it does not shake my faith in the least. I don't care HOW He did it. I just know that He did... and for a very good purpose: for us.
By the way, so that your flames can be properly aimed, Yes, I AM Mormon... Member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
And for the rest of Christendom that accepts some truth, and disregards the rest, I would encourage you to open your mind.
_____
And I return to one of my original statements, "opportunity cost - for every choice made, there is a consequence". So many of the perceived shortages are in the mind of man and directly affected by man's own bad choices. It stems from untruth and falsehood.
If truth abounded, and mankind would stop warring and oppressing each other, so many of the examples you cite would be non-existant. Tell the Indian that the cow he sees walk by himself is not really his grandfather, and therefore he can eat a little better in the days to come. Tell the warring tribes of africa to make peace and work together, and share resources they have all around them.
So many of the problems we see are of our own making. Just because we have not figured out how to properly use with good stewardship the things we have been given, does not make it God's fault. The promise is real, and still stands: There is enough to spare. We just need to use it more wisely.
You have cited a very low law: "the law of the jungle" (low on the totem pole in regards to importance).
There is a higher law that supercedes it: "Love thy neighbor as thyself".
If this was followed, by every nation and every people, the problems you see on the surface would not exist.
It is the sophist that lies and tells you that "that's just the way it is, and it can't be changed."
What then of hope? Is there no hope in the world?
By your posting, I think what you need is hope....
You have been misled by the sophists of the day. You believe what they have been telling you about overcrowding, food shortages, and low natural resources. These are lies perpetuated by those who love and worship money, and would lie to take advantage of his neighbor. They are 120% and absolutely false.
There is enough to take care of ourselves, to take care of our neighbors, and to take care of the poor. The Lord said: "For the earth is full, and there is enough and to spare" DC 104:17.
And that is the truth of it.
Absolutely true.... I censor nobody from reading Jon Katz. I am just choosing to no longer read his essays myself.
And to quote my latin/economics teacher from High School: "opportunity cost - for every opportunity taken, there is a cost..." no matter how slight. EVERY single action or choice we make has consequence.
And my "self-censorship", if you wish to call it that, is a decision based on the principle of GIGO - Garbage In, Garbage Out. I tend to think if I keep the garbage Jon writes out of my head, I will be less prone to let the same kind of garbage spread from me to the rest of the world.
Thank you Rhys Dyfrgi.
I know this is flame-bait, but I will say it anyway. I am against censorship and book burning. You may believe what you want, think what you want, and do what you want. That is your right. A stop sign is there, and you may choose to stop, or choose to drive through it. You can choose to abide by a cinema's policies or you can subvert them by dishonesty and trickery. It is your choice.
But one must be careful when making a sweeping generalization... Not all geeks like porn. Not all geeks like vulgarity. Not all geeks like attitude, and goth, and rebellion.
Jon Katz has brought me to a disgust of the popular usage of the term geek. It is so one-sided. There are plenty of good, clean-cut, anti-porn, honest geeks out there.
Jon Katz is certainly allowed his own opinion. To restrict his opinion would be censorship.
But we also have the right to tune him out. I am tired of the "poor, pitiful, porn-deprived geek syndrome" that he so often writes about.
My thanks to slashdot for allowing us to customize our page to our own tastes... I will be blocking Jon's rantings and filth from this time forth.
Sincerely,
A concerned father of 6.
There is a real problem here... and it is related to morality and integrity, not necessarily to definitions of words.
Let me use just one of the examples from what you have said, and I quote:
"Real hackers don't steal, vandalize or damage."
And at the end of the posting you said:
"Hackers don't buy computer games, but they get online anyway, managing to get their hands on registration access codes."
This is somewhat of a contradiction... and it brings truth to the statement that there is no exactly defined division between cracker and hacker. To use an old western movie symbol, There are some who wear white hats, some who wear black hats, and some who wear many shades in between.
Is it not stealing to gain access codes to a game that one has not legitimately purchased?
If the software is not freeware, and is marketed for a price, and the price is not given, then usage is stealing.
This country, and the world for that matter has lost its sense of integrity. The definition of honesty is lost. Not that honesty does not exist, but that people define it to their advantage, and therefore the differences between "the black hat and the white hat" are very blurred.
This is why it is a perception problem... Hacker and Cracker are defined by the people that use them purely on their own perception. Perhaps the usage of the word hacker has taken a connotation it never should have, but how can we blame them now? Every time the media mentions the bad things done, they use the word hacker. I don't think that will ever change now.
And this is also why it is an integrity problem.... had "TRUE HACKERS" never stained their hands in dishonest activity, no matter how slight, the words may have never taken on the shades that they did.