I signed a contract with a book publisher, not with Google. I wrote the book for an audience, and signed the book publisher to reach that audience.
So you don't want a greater audience? If someone other than the publisher can increase a book's audience that spares the publisher expenses so they can offer higher royalties. Not that they will but it can be a bargaining chip.
Google's ability to offer my hard work for free to anyone searching, robs me of my ability to sell the work through the channel of my choosing.
Google does not offer whole books but even if they did many people don't like reading entire books on a monitor, many want hardcopy and it's cheaper to buy a book than print it at home. The last tyme I saw the cost of printing one page on typical printers it was more than 10 cents a page, so it would cost $10 to print 100 pages. I've bought books for $10 that had more than 200 pages. Of course this could change if e-ink can be made to resemble paper. However that would cut the cost of distribution. Google also includes links to bookstores where it can be bought.
Google simply took the book from a university library shelf, and redistributed it to the world, intact and incarnate. That, my friend, is theft. I don't want Google to expose my book. Google in fact thwarts my income by giving my work away for free.
I'd love Google to index and include my books, and articles. I haven't finished and submitted a book to a publisher yet but I did submit articles to magazines. Unfortunately I lost the books and articles I was working on, after I survived a disability. What gets me is I had an editor interested in one of my articles. I submitted a proposal and she wrote back that she wanted my article to focus on one aspect. However as I implied in the post you replied to I'll probably want to self publish books anyway.
They're the "number 2 software company," but they didn't have anything like the JDK or a real OS to call their own.
Oracle did have an OS, RedHat. There was talk a few years back that Oracle would kill or acquire RedHat after they released their own version of RedHat.
When a customer says "we're going with IBM because they can deliver a whole solution" Oracle can now say "So can we!".
What would bother me if I were at Oracle would be those hardware businesses that I currently supply with a DB developing the attitude that Oracle was going to compeat with them. With the buyout Oracle would have a compleat system from hardware to OS to applications.
Oracle will definately push Oracle DB, it's their main earner. They will support Linux but will likely push Solaris. If they were going to push Linux they would have bought RedHat, because Linux to Oracle means RedHat.
Why would Oracle buy, they already sell systems with Redhat. A few years ago there was speculation Oracle would buy Redhat because they started using it, or kill Redhat. Here's one such article, "Will Oracle Linux Kill Red Hat?"
I'm afraid Google doesn't distribute the works they scan. They store copies of the works, use them for searching, and display at most a sentence or two where they found the match with the search terms along with a link to someone who does sell copies of the work.
Google does more than just display a sentence or two, they display a page or two or more. Google displays all of the book "The political philosophy of Benjamin Franklin". The same with other books. Now having said that, once some read part of a book they may be willing to order hardcopies of it.
Reminds me of the scene in the Rodney Dangerfield classic "Back to School" in which Dangerfield's character pays Kurt Vonnegut (playing himself in a cameo) to write a college paper on his own book.
Yea, and the prof says something along the lines the scientist wouldn't write something so bad.
Google directly has an effect on my royalty checks. For that, they've injured me, and the effort I went thru to produce ten books.
If what you wrote was good then Google having scanned them should lead to more sales thus increasing your royalty checks.
Of course to really boost your sales perhaps what you could do is create downloadable pdf versions of your books. You could then either allow anyone to download them or could sale them online, I believe Amazon sales them. To add to your cash flow you could then provide a method by which purchasers could order a printed copy and either pay a local print shop to custom print and bind the books or you could do it yourself. I've thought about doing this myself, I love photography and would like to try my hand at making money from it, so what I could do is take orders for coffee table photography books. Perhaps even allow buyers to create their own books by allowing them to pick the photos for their own book. This is becoming popular with wedding photographers.
book to the world. TurnItIn is only providing the paper content to the individual teacher. TurnItIn is making money from a service provided to the education community. Google is making money from advertisements to a world wide audience who were attracted by the book content which is commercial use of the book content with no other purpose.
There's two problems I see with this argument. The first one is that Google does not show the whole book. Google has returned book entries when I've used it, however the most it had displayed is a few pages at most. Then as TFA says those books Google does return see an increase in sales, which benefits the publisher.
Good teachers rely on a suite of metrics to gauge student progress and adjust the curriculum to suit.
This reminds me of one professor I had. A speech class was required where I went but I wasn't good at getting in front of classes most of the tyme. So when I decided to take speech I asked around for a tough professor hoping taking one would help. She was tough, but on the first day she explained she didn't grade so much on how we did but on how much we improved when we gave a speech.
Yes, in the southern US AC is in more demand than heating. When I lived in Florida AC was typically on longer than heating. People would keep it on 4 to 6 months but only have heating on 2 or 3.
Lest we forget. Christianity has been the defacto force of progressive-ism many times in U.S. history. We must urge Christians to assume that role once again. We've let the republicans take that sector over, and really it does not do Christianity justice.
Actually in the US today it's mostly democrats who are the progressives.
What about hydroelectric? Both are relatively green, and are economically viable.
Not really, neither are green nor economically viable. Wall Street will not pay for nuclear power without government subsidies. Nor is it green. First there's the mining for fuel, then the processing which uses a lot of energy, then the long term storage. As for hydro, darn I didn't find it but a UN study of dams concluded that they are not economically efficient in the long run. And environmentally they cause a lot of land to be submerged. In such anaerobic settings decaying plants produce methane which is more than 20 tymes more powerful as a greenhouse gas as CO2.
Also they don't have the problem of failing to generate electricity at night, or when there are too many clouds out, and can be used to generate the power grids base load.
There are other energy systems that can be used as well, such as wind. And for a baseload geothermal can be used.
Trouble is, the peak power from a solar cell is in the summer - just the time when everybody's lightbulbs and central heating systems spend most of the time off,
A caveat to the Vatican, they may find the Italian monopoly of the export market leads to some thin margins
I'll refer to TFA again, where it says "He said the Vatican will benefit from Italy's solar incentives that include requiring local utilities to buy sun power at above-market prices."
Reading TFA it's likely a local utility will be buying the electricity, it says "The 100 megawatts unleashed by the station will supply about 40,000 households." So the solar farm will be offsetting the electricity the Vatican uses.
ie one without regulations or other government interference.
OK, you don't understand the topic you're trying to discuss at all.
What you are describing here is not at all, in any way shape or form anything like a free market. You are describing an *unregulated* market. Unregulated markets never work anything like free markets.
You're the one who doesn't understand what a free market is. Let's see how Google defines a free market:
"A free market is a market in which property rights are voluntarily exchanged at a price arranged completely by the mutual consent of sellers and buyers. In a free market, 'individuals, rather than government, make the majority of decisions regarding economic activities and transactions."
"Any market in which trade is unregulated"
"a market in which supply and demand are unregulated except by the country's competition policy, and rights in physical and intellectual..."
"A market that is not interfered with by government constraints on transactions. Most would say, however, that a market that is subject to a modest..."
"A system in which the market forces of supply and demand determine prices and allocate available supplies, without government intervention...."
"Business governed by the laws of supply and demand, not restrained by government interference, regulation or subsidy."
"A market with unrestricted trading of goods, where the prices of goods are determined by supply and demand. Internationally, an unrestricted movement of goods, unhampered by the existence of tariffs or other trade barriers."
Each one of these either says little or no regulations, or government interference. I even put it in bold where the definitions say that. And that 's what I said was a free market.
Please learn this really simple fact. Unregulated markets are not free markets. They will never be because it's not possible for them to be.
You need to learn the simple facts. I suggest you start with the Google link, which provides links to definitions of "free market".
If you were hit that often, I must assume that either you have poor driving skills or you live in a particularly nasty area.
The first two tymes I was cut off, the driver passed me on the left then made a right turn while it was still light out. Witnesses to the third one said the driver was weaving all over the road and said it was only a matter of tyme before he hit someone. Someone had to chase him down and force him to stop.
I did say those three accidents happened within a year, what I didn't say was that I rode my bike for years without an accident. I narrowly avoided a bunch, mostly because drivers were gabbing on their cellphones and were not paying attention to traffic.
But that's nonsense, because if the pricing weren't affordable relative to value customers would 'leave it' and the monopoly would shrink in size. If the prices were high relative to the costs, competitors would start to enter the market and investment would be there for the easy money.
The first part, shrinking of market, is true but the second part does not have to be true. In the case of a natural monopoly it definitely is not true. How how many people have a choice as to whom they get landline cable or phone service from?
Slashdot Mirror
If that's how you feel okay, but I want my work to be as widely marketed as possible.
Falcon
I signed a contract with a book publisher, not with Google. I wrote the book for an audience, and signed the book publisher to reach that audience.
So you don't want a greater audience? If someone other than the publisher can increase a book's audience that spares the publisher expenses so they can offer higher royalties. Not that they will but it can be a bargaining chip.
Google's ability to offer my hard work for free to anyone searching, robs me of my ability to sell the work through the channel of my choosing.
Google does not offer whole books but even if they did many people don't like reading entire books on a monitor, many want hardcopy and it's cheaper to buy a book than print it at home. The last tyme I saw the cost of printing one page on typical printers it was more than 10 cents a page, so it would cost $10 to print 100 pages. I've bought books for $10 that had more than 200 pages. Of course this could change if e-ink can be made to resemble paper. However that would cut the cost of distribution. Google also includes links to bookstores where it can be bought.
Google simply took the book from a university library shelf, and redistributed it to the world, intact and incarnate. That, my friend, is theft. I don't want Google to expose my book. Google in fact thwarts my income by giving my work away for free.
I'd love Google to index and include my books, and articles. I haven't finished and submitted a book to a publisher yet but I did submit articles to magazines. Unfortunately I lost the books and articles I was working on, after I survived a disability. What gets me is I had an editor interested in one of my articles. I submitted a proposal and she wrote back that she wanted my article to focus on one aspect. However as I implied in the post you replied to I'll probably want to self publish books anyway.
They're the "number 2 software company," but they didn't have anything like the JDK or a real OS to call their own.
Oracle did have an OS, RedHat. There was talk a few years back that Oracle would kill or acquire RedHat after they released their own version of RedHat.
Falcon
When a customer says "we're going with IBM because they can deliver a whole solution" Oracle can now say "So can we!".
What would bother me if I were at Oracle would be those hardware businesses that I currently supply with a DB developing the attitude that Oracle was going to compeat with them. With the buyout Oracle would have a compleat system from hardware to OS to applications.
Falcon
The only way to get an instant DB monopoly by merger would be if Oracle, IBM, and Microsoft underwent a three-way merger. Which is somewhat unlikely.
Imagine this, Larry Ellison throwing Ballmer off his sailboat, during the Sailing World Cup.
Falcon
Oracle will definately push Oracle DB, it's their main earner. They will support Linux but will likely push Solaris. If they were going to push Linux they would have bought RedHat, because Linux to Oracle means RedHat.
Why would Oracle buy, they already sell systems with Redhat. A few years ago there was speculation Oracle would buy Redhat because they started using it, or kill Redhat. Here's one such article, "Will Oracle Linux Kill Red Hat?"
Falcon
Oracle already has an OS, they have been using Redhat Linux.
Falcon
I'm afraid Google doesn't distribute the works they scan. They store copies of the works, use them for searching, and display at most a sentence or two where they found the match with the search terms along with a link to someone who does sell copies of the work.
Google does more than just display a sentence or two, they display a page or two or more. Google displays all of the book "The political philosophy of Benjamin Franklin". The same with other books. Now having said that, once some read part of a book they may be willing to order hardcopies of it.
Falcon
Reminds me of the scene in the Rodney Dangerfield classic "Back to School" in which Dangerfield's character pays Kurt Vonnegut (playing himself in a cameo) to write a college paper on his own book.
Yea, and the prof says something along the lines the scientist wouldn't write something so bad.
Falcon
Shake it up baby!
Google directly has an effect on my royalty checks. For that, they've injured me, and the effort I went thru to produce ten books.
If what you wrote was good then Google having scanned them should lead to more sales thus increasing your royalty checks.
Of course to really boost your sales perhaps what you could do is create downloadable pdf versions of your books. You could then either allow anyone to download them or could sale them online, I believe Amazon sales them. To add to your cash flow you could then provide a method by which purchasers could order a printed copy and either pay a local print shop to custom print and bind the books or you could do it yourself. I've thought about doing this myself, I love photography and would like to try my hand at making money from it, so what I could do is take orders for coffee table photography books. Perhaps even allow buyers to create their own books by allowing them to pick the photos for their own book. This is becoming popular with wedding photographers.
Falcon
book to the world. TurnItIn is only providing the paper content to the individual teacher. TurnItIn is making money from a service provided to the education community. Google is making money from advertisements to a world wide audience who were attracted by the book content which is commercial use of the book content with no other purpose.
There's two problems I see with this argument. The first one is that Google does not show the whole book. Google has returned book entries when I've used it, however the most it had displayed is a few pages at most. Then as TFA says those books Google does return see an increase in sales, which benefits the publisher.
Falcon
Good teachers rely on a suite of metrics to gauge student progress and adjust the curriculum to suit.
This reminds me of one professor I had. A speech class was required where I went but I wasn't good at getting in front of classes most of the tyme. So when I decided to take speech I asked around for a tough professor hoping taking one would help. She was tough, but on the first day she explained she didn't grade so much on how we did but on how much we improved when we gave a speech.
Falcon
Yes, in the southern US AC is in more demand than heating. When I lived in Florida AC was typically on longer than heating. People would keep it on 4 to 6 months but only have heating on 2 or 3.
Falcon
Lest we forget. Christianity has been the defacto force of progressive-ism many times in U.S. history. We must urge Christians to assume that role once again. We've let the republicans take that sector over, and really it does not do Christianity justice.
Actually in the US today it's mostly democrats who are the progressives.
Falcon
What about hydroelectric? Both are relatively green, and are economically viable.
Not really, neither are green nor economically viable. Wall Street will not pay for nuclear power without government subsidies. Nor is it green. First there's the mining for fuel, then the processing which uses a lot of energy, then the long term storage. As for hydro, darn I didn't find it but a UN study of dams concluded that they are not economically efficient in the long run. And environmentally they cause a lot of land to be submerged. In such anaerobic settings decaying plants produce methane which is more than 20 tymes more powerful as a greenhouse gas as CO2.
Also they don't have the problem of failing to generate electricity at night, or when there are too many clouds out, and can be used to generate the power grids base load.
There are other energy systems that can be used as well, such as wind. And for a baseload geothermal can be used.
Falcon
Trouble is, the peak power from a solar cell is in the summer - just the time when everybody's lightbulbs and central heating systems spend most of the time off,
And when the demand for AC is greatest.
Falcon
A caveat to the Vatican, they may find the Italian monopoly of the export market leads to some thin margins
I'll refer to TFA again, where it says "He said the Vatican will benefit from Italy's solar incentives that include requiring local utilities to buy sun power at above-market prices."
Falcon
If this were the case, there would be capitalists all over the world assembling massive solar arrays for electricity production.
There are people doing precisely this throughout the world.
Falcon
The mayor can raise cash via taxation, but the Vatican can't
The Vatican has something more powerful, eternal damnation.
Falcon
I hope Stephen Hawking can get out of the hospital soon.
Falcon
Reading TFA it's likely a local utility will be buying the electricity, it says "The 100 megawatts unleashed by the station will supply about 40,000 households." So the solar farm will be offsetting the electricity the Vatican uses.
Falcon
Maybe you have seen them, Christian groups in the US have aired environmental ads on TV. Here's an article about the "four most important biblical passages for a Christian enviromentalism".
Falcon
ie one without regulations or other government interference.
OK, you don't understand the topic you're trying to discuss at all.
What you are describing here is not at all, in any way shape or form anything like a free market. You are describing an *unregulated* market. Unregulated markets never work anything like free markets.
You're the one who doesn't understand what a free market is. Let's see how Google defines a free market:
Each one of these either says little or no regulations, or government interference. I even put it in bold where the definitions say that. And that 's what I said was a free market.
Please learn this really simple fact. Unregulated markets are not free markets. They will never be because it's not possible for them to be.
You need to learn the simple facts. I suggest you start with the Google link, which provides links to definitions of "free market".
Falcon
If you were hit that often, I must assume that either you have poor driving skills or you live in a particularly nasty area.
The first two tymes I was cut off, the driver passed me on the left then made a right turn while it was still light out. Witnesses to the third one said the driver was weaving all over the road and said it was only a matter of tyme before he hit someone. Someone had to chase him down and force him to stop.
I did say those three accidents happened within a year, what I didn't say was that I rode my bike for years without an accident. I narrowly avoided a bunch, mostly because drivers were gabbing on their cellphones and were not paying attention to traffic.
Falcon
But that's nonsense, because if the pricing weren't affordable relative to value customers would 'leave it' and the monopoly would shrink in size. If the prices were high relative to the costs, competitors would start to enter the market and investment would be there for the easy money.
The first part, shrinking of market, is true but the second part does not have to be true. In the case of a natural monopoly it definitely is not true. How how many people have a choice as to whom they get landline cable or phone service from?
Fslcon