So wait, are you trying to say that married women 25-33 aren't losers that spend all day posting on facebook about their shitty lives and can't afford expensive cars? Because as someone that unfortunately has to interact with quite a few married women 25 - 33 (mothers of my kids' friends, family, etc.), I would say a lot of them - especially the ones on facebook - are.
I'm a native English speaker and not even a guy, and I will admit that I spend a couple of seconds imagining how a babe in a bikini would possibly do a donut, and then thinking maybe I read it wrong and Matthew Broderick was doing donuts.
But in the world painted, why on earth would authors enter into an abusive contract? That would only work if the rules changed suddenly, and authors were blindsided. Authors would know it was happening. Once the current abusive contracts ended, authors wouldn't enter into new abusive contracts.
If it is possible to make such a mint from self publishing why aren't we saying more authors first gain fame through e-books rather than through normal channels?
Well, part of the reason is that authors that are making a mint through self publishing are just sticking to self-publishing - which includes both ebooks and printed books, btw, as It's quite easy to self-publish a printed book too. If publishers are approaching them and saying "hey, we know you're making quite a bit of money and are quite popular, so do you want to sign a contract with us that means you will get less from each book than you are currently getting?" there's little incentive to say yes. Why mess with success? All signing with a publisher does is get you into brick-and-mortar stores, which are dying. So then, those high-selling authors aren't mentioned in the New York Times, on TV, don't get a big display at bookstores etc. so if those are your only methods of seeing authors, you don't see them.
Another part of it is that a lot of the bestselling authors are career authors that already gained a huge following through their publisher (either before self-publishing was a viable option, or because a publisher happened to find them early in their career) and either see no reason to switch (why mess with success) or are against self-publishing for whatever reason (in their minds their way is the only right way, usually).
But we are seeing SOME bestsellers that first gained fame through ebooks or other e-writing, and I expect that amount will grow as time goes on - self-publishing being a way to gain fame is quite new.
In e-books it's a weird situation. Novel writing becomes like blogging
No, it does not. It's always quite different than blogging, no matter if you print it out when you're done, send it to someone else to print, or never print it at all.
The Forest Gump novel came out in 1986, the movie in 1994; things were much different then. It was much more difficult to hear about a great book. Nowadays if a book is actually good, it doesn't have to have a movie based on it for people to hear about it and buy it. Back then making a book into a movie made it a bestseller, nowadays a book is considered for making into a movie after it is already a bestseller. There are some indie books that are selling just as much or more than The Hunger Games. In the past you had to get approval from companies and the media before being allowed to make money from your book... now the customers decide what is worthy of making money on their own.
"There shouldn't be an insentive for you to get rich by taking most of her ideas and doing something else with them without her permission for some reasonable time."
Wait... why not? No story is created in a vaccume. What she wrote is a result of what she has experianced and what she has read. How many of the books she read still have copyright protection? Should the Harry Potter books not have been released until the copyrights on everything JK Rowling ever read expire?
One of the current bestsellers is actually a fanfic of Twilight with the names changed. As long as you make it unique and good enough to stand on its own (not that I think Fifty Shades of Grey is good, but you get what I mean), why shouldn't that be allowed? Taking the exact book and changing the author's name to your own shouldn't be allowed, but taking the ideas and expressing them in your own way while adding something to them is fine. If the author's way of expressing the ideas is good, it will make money. If someone else does it better, that person will make more money. Why is that wrong?
"Having infinite copyright won't impede progress of competitors."
HA! Even without infinite copyright, the MPAA and RIAA were able to impede progress of competitors for quite some time. Heck, that only changed when the distribution methods customers desired changed - when people started wanting to use the internet to watch and listen to things rather than movie theaters, the radio, stores, etc. The MPAA and RIAA still reign over those and try their damnedest to control the internet as well.
Now that book 1 is free, it provides great free publicity for book 5. If you try to negotiate her down to nothing, the author can self-publish book 5 on ereaders and make a killing. Sure, you can keep printing book 1 and pay her nothing, but you're spending the cost to print the book, and then unless you're giving the printed book away for free, trying to sell something that is easily available for free.
How = because they don't give a shit. It doesn't take many people to destroy a city, and this type of people tend to breed often and early. So for example you have 10 single-income families that want to keep the city going. 1 no-income family moves in, let's say they have 5 kids, and let's say it takes the taxes of 2 people to pay for that 1 family. If each of those 5 kids has a kid before at least 1 kid from each of the families with incomes gets a job (because for example they all go to college while the no-income family becomes teen parents) the city is already going to start to go under. Now you've not only got a city that can't support itself, you've got 6 different households that don't give a shit about the city. and most of the kids from those 10 single-income families are going to want to move away because they see that the city is turning to shit.
Teach her not to mash the buttons and drool on it, to sit back on her own rather than you holding it out of reach. The way to do that is tell her, and if she disobeys, end the call. If she hangs up, you don't let them immediately continue the call. You will only have to end the call a few times, and they can call back, say, an hour later if they are really upset by it.
My 2 year old actually has his own computer in his room (as do my older kids), and I bought my daughter her own tablet at 3, so I'm not going to say don't put one in your kid's room; but teach her how to not fuck it up first, and be sure she wont, and make it clear you will not replace it if she does - then you can just put it in there without doing anything special.
I'm not saying we should bail out failed societies. Part of the problem is that we desperately try to bail out failing societies! Instead of just letting the rats drown with the sinking ship, we keep the ship afloat just long enough for the rats to scurry to other boats, never pausing to think that just maybe it's the rats' fault the boat sank, and maybe we'd be better off if the rats drowned. The rats go to the other ships and breed and sink other ships.
If a part of the country is destroyed, we all lose that part of the country. Are we better off without the people that were in that part of the country? Probably. But odds are those people are just going to go destroy more of our country, so we've all lost something and haven't won anything. People don't look at the failure of a city and think "well here's where they made their mistake, we should be more responsible in the future." Instead the people from the city go breed somewhere else and pass their attitude of irresponsibility into other parts of the country, where before it was contained within that failing city. Really the solution, imo, is to stop allowing irresponsible people to breed at the responsible' expense.
What do you mean by overcome the fact that they came from a failed city? I grew up in a failed city. The majority of people that left just go on to destroy different cities.
Those cities are no longer great and the "destruction" was self-inflicted.
Pretty sure that was his point. We're all part of the same society, you know. If New Orleans was bulldozed or left to fend for itself, do you think all the citizens of New Orleans would just stay there in the rubble? No, much of them would move to other areas, taking their attitudes with them.
All? I've never heard that applied to wind nor solar power. Worse that usually happens with those is a blade or panel falls and hurts a person or two, and since pretty much everyone can put a small wind turbine or solar panel on their own roof, it's kinda hard for 1 person (or small groups of people) to control those.
Did you read the comment I replied to? Yes, there's more to painting than just painting walls, but I was talking about JUST painting walls. The person I replied to was saying that instead of reading to children, we should just, for example, let them paint walls. My point was that yes, there is value in painting (and typing and playing with Lego) but unless you're doing various things including reading to them, you are severely limiting them in life. Why are you jumping into conversations you don't understand? You are the one turning this personal... though admittedly, I was going under the assumption that everyone wants their children to be happy and knowledgeable rather than just marketable (and I won't get into a conversation about how marketable physical labor skills will be in the next generation, as more and more things are automated and outsourced...).
I find it hard to believe that she just paints. I went to an arts school from 6th grade on, and we had to keep our grades (and knowledge) up in ALL subjects, and had to have high grades and lots of knowledge in all subjects to even be considered for admittance. Nearly every state has a law that children in k - 12, no matter the type of school, must learn at least a minimum of all subjects. How did she manage to fill out the forms to sign up for the art business course without reading or writing? Did she paint what she wanted the form to convey and have someone else "translate" it?
You already realize that by "paint" in that comment I was talking about painting walls (as the person I replied to said), not oils and acrylics. There is great value in both those types of painting, and great value in learning to type and use computers, and great value in playing with Lego. But when any one of those things is ALL a child can do (and without being able to read, typing is more button-mashing than typing, and there isn't as much value in that), that's a problem. When a child can read and enjoys doing so, the whole world is open to them. They can learn whatever they wish to learn, they can find their passion in life rather than just doing what their parents feel they should do. If your daughter is dedicated enough to go to an art magnet school and sign up for an art business course, I'm assuming she tried many things and realized art is her passion. This is quite different than a person becoming a wall painter because it is all they ever learned to do, since their parents thought it was all they needed to know to get through life.
I'm not saying any infant programming is good. Books are much better for teaching a child to follow a sequential plot (as long as we're talking about real books, not "see spot run.".
Personally I would encourage your mother to speak to them in her native language.
Slashdot Mirror
So wait, are you trying to say that married women 25-33 aren't losers that spend all day posting on facebook about their shitty lives and can't afford expensive cars? Because as someone that unfortunately has to interact with quite a few married women 25 - 33 (mothers of my kids' friends, family, etc.), I would say a lot of them - especially the ones on facebook - are.
Did you suddenly start talking to a lot more people in the past 2 years?
I'm a native English speaker and not even a guy, and I will admit that I spend a couple of seconds imagining how a babe in a bikini would possibly do a donut, and then thinking maybe I read it wrong and Matthew Broderick was doing donuts.
If it is possible to make such a mint from self publishing why aren't we saying more authors first gain fame through e-books rather than through normal channels?
Well, part of the reason is that authors that are making a mint through self publishing are just sticking to self-publishing - which includes both ebooks and printed books, btw, as It's quite easy to self-publish a printed book too. If publishers are approaching them and saying "hey, we know you're making quite a bit of money and are quite popular, so do you want to sign a contract with us that means you will get less from each book than you are currently getting?" there's little incentive to say yes. Why mess with success? All signing with a publisher does is get you into brick-and-mortar stores, which are dying. So then, those high-selling authors aren't mentioned in the New York Times, on TV, don't get a big display at bookstores etc. so if those are your only methods of seeing authors, you don't see them.
Another part of it is that a lot of the bestselling authors are career authors that already gained a huge following through their publisher (either before self-publishing was a viable option, or because a publisher happened to find them early in their career) and either see no reason to switch (why mess with success) or are against self-publishing for whatever reason (in their minds their way is the only right way, usually).
But we are seeing SOME bestsellers that first gained fame through ebooks or other e-writing, and I expect that amount will grow as time goes on - self-publishing being a way to gain fame is quite new.
In e-books it's a weird situation. Novel writing becomes like blogging
No, it does not. It's always quite different than blogging, no matter if you print it out when you're done, send it to someone else to print, or never print it at all.
The Forest Gump novel came out in 1986, the movie in 1994; things were much different then. It was much more difficult to hear about a great book. Nowadays if a book is actually good, it doesn't have to have a movie based on it for people to hear about it and buy it. Back then making a book into a movie made it a bestseller, nowadays a book is considered for making into a movie after it is already a bestseller. There are some indie books that are selling just as much or more than The Hunger Games. In the past you had to get approval from companies and the media before being allowed to make money from your book... now the customers decide what is worthy of making money on their own.
"There shouldn't be an insentive for you to get rich by taking most of her ideas and doing something else with them without her permission for some reasonable time."
Wait... why not? No story is created in a vaccume. What she wrote is a result of what she has experianced and what she has read. How many of the books she read still have copyright protection? Should the Harry Potter books not have been released until the copyrights on everything JK Rowling ever read expire?
One of the current bestsellers is actually a fanfic of Twilight with the names changed. As long as you make it unique and good enough to stand on its own (not that I think Fifty Shades of Grey is good, but you get what I mean), why shouldn't that be allowed? Taking the exact book and changing the author's name to your own shouldn't be allowed, but taking the ideas and expressing them in your own way while adding something to them is fine. If the author's way of expressing the ideas is good, it will make money. If someone else does it better, that person will make more money. Why is that wrong?
"Having infinite copyright won't impede progress of competitors."
HA! Even without infinite copyright, the MPAA and RIAA were able to impede progress of competitors for quite some time. Heck, that only changed when the distribution methods customers desired changed - when people started wanting to use the internet to watch and listen to things rather than movie theaters, the radio, stores, etc. The MPAA and RIAA still reign over those and try their damnedest to control the internet as well.
Now that book 1 is free, it provides great free publicity for book 5. If you try to negotiate her down to nothing, the author can self-publish book 5 on ereaders and make a killing. Sure, you can keep printing book 1 and pay her nothing, but you're spending the cost to print the book, and then unless you're giving the printed book away for free, trying to sell something that is easily available for free.
Would you really want your rollerball mouse to still be alive?
How = because they don't give a shit. It doesn't take many people to destroy a city, and this type of people tend to breed often and early. So for example you have 10 single-income families that want to keep the city going. 1 no-income family moves in, let's say they have 5 kids, and let's say it takes the taxes of 2 people to pay for that 1 family. If each of those 5 kids has a kid before at least 1 kid from each of the families with incomes gets a job (because for example they all go to college while the no-income family becomes teen parents) the city is already going to start to go under. Now you've not only got a city that can't support itself, you've got 6 different households that don't give a shit about the city. and most of the kids from those 10 single-income families are going to want to move away because they see that the city is turning to shit.
Teach her not to mash the buttons and drool on it, to sit back on her own rather than you holding it out of reach. The way to do that is tell her, and if she disobeys, end the call. If she hangs up, you don't let them immediately continue the call. You will only have to end the call a few times, and they can call back, say, an hour later if they are really upset by it.
My 2 year old actually has his own computer in his room (as do my older kids), and I bought my daughter her own tablet at 3, so I'm not going to say don't put one in your kid's room; but teach her how to not fuck it up first, and be sure she wont, and make it clear you will not replace it if she does - then you can just put it in there without doing anything special.
Well, I like money more than I like my kids, so x-ray away!
I'm not saying we should bail out failed societies. Part of the problem is that we desperately try to bail out failing societies! Instead of just letting the rats drown with the sinking ship, we keep the ship afloat just long enough for the rats to scurry to other boats, never pausing to think that just maybe it's the rats' fault the boat sank, and maybe we'd be better off if the rats drowned. The rats go to the other ships and breed and sink other ships.
If a part of the country is destroyed, we all lose that part of the country. Are we better off without the people that were in that part of the country? Probably. But odds are those people are just going to go destroy more of our country, so we've all lost something and haven't won anything. People don't look at the failure of a city and think "well here's where they made their mistake, we should be more responsible in the future." Instead the people from the city go breed somewhere else and pass their attitude of irresponsibility into other parts of the country, where before it was contained within that failing city. Really the solution, imo, is to stop allowing irresponsible people to breed at the responsible' expense.
What do you mean by overcome the fact that they came from a failed city? I grew up in a failed city. The majority of people that left just go on to destroy different cities.
Stop lying to me.
Those cities are no longer great and the "destruction" was self-inflicted.
Pretty sure that was his point. We're all part of the same society, you know. If New Orleans was bulldozed or left to fend for itself, do you think all the citizens of New Orleans would just stay there in the rubble? No, much of them would move to other areas, taking their attitudes with them.
And since life expectancy was so much higher in the past, we'll be fine.
All? I've never heard that applied to wind nor solar power. Worse that usually happens with those is a blade or panel falls and hurts a person or two, and since pretty much everyone can put a small wind turbine or solar panel on their own roof, it's kinda hard for 1 person (or small groups of people) to control those.
They removed something I haven't used in 10 years!
You stab vampires with stakes, not spikes.
Did you read the comment I replied to? Yes, there's more to painting than just painting walls, but I was talking about JUST painting walls. The person I replied to was saying that instead of reading to children, we should just, for example, let them paint walls. My point was that yes, there is value in painting (and typing and playing with Lego) but unless you're doing various things including reading to them, you are severely limiting them in life. Why are you jumping into conversations you don't understand? You are the one turning this personal... though admittedly, I was going under the assumption that everyone wants their children to be happy and knowledgeable rather than just marketable (and I won't get into a conversation about how marketable physical labor skills will be in the next generation, as more and more things are automated and outsourced...).
Getting to youtube and finding the video you want requires reading.
I find it hard to believe that she just paints. I went to an arts school from 6th grade on, and we had to keep our grades (and knowledge) up in ALL subjects, and had to have high grades and lots of knowledge in all subjects to even be considered for admittance. Nearly every state has a law that children in k - 12, no matter the type of school, must learn at least a minimum of all subjects.
How did she manage to fill out the forms to sign up for the art business course without reading or writing? Did she paint what she wanted the form to convey and have someone else "translate" it?
You already realize that by "paint" in that comment I was talking about painting walls (as the person I replied to said), not oils and acrylics. There is great value in both those types of painting, and great value in learning to type and use computers, and great value in playing with Lego. But when any one of those things is ALL a child can do (and without being able to read, typing is more button-mashing than typing, and there isn't as much value in that), that's a problem. When a child can read and enjoys doing so, the whole world is open to them. They can learn whatever they wish to learn, they can find their passion in life rather than just doing what their parents feel they should do. If your daughter is dedicated enough to go to an art magnet school and sign up for an art business course, I'm assuming she tried many things and realized art is her passion. This is quite different than a person becoming a wall painter because it is all they ever learned to do, since their parents thought it was all they needed to know to get through life.
I'm not saying any infant programming is good. Books are much better for teaching a child to follow a sequential plot (as long as we're talking about real books, not "see spot run.".
Personally I would encourage your mother to speak to them in her native language.
Free comic book day is saturday, the perfect opportunity to let the kid pick out some stuff!