I'm not sure I see the point in paying any significant amount of money for eBook cover art, but to each his own. The average cover art for an eBook is going to be shown Icon Size on an eReader menu. No?

I agree editing is key and being able to pay editors frees an author to do other things. But wouldn't high editor fees equate to the equivalent of the "unpolished/lousy prototype" type project that this thread is saying shouldn't go through KS anyway?

My KS pet peeve is seeing typographic errors in project descriptions. What chance is there that the end product will be polished if the requester doesn't have sense to polish the request for money that they are putting out there?

Sell an eBook on Kickstarter and keep 95% of the sales (or whatever KS skims off the top which I think is 5-10%). :-)

A video game of a card game is still fundamentally a card game. A KS project to implement a video game based on a card game that already exists (whether it be published or not) is a more attractive KS than one to invent a new video game card game that only exists in the "idea phase" of the designer's head. Right?

So maybe that's their new business model? Deliver content, earn kickbacks? This actually seems much more lucrative than being an advertizing company since cellular phone companies have been clamping down on Monthly Allowances for the past few years.

Whatever... I learned a new word today! puerile.png FTW.

Cost $7 for two bulbs at AutoZone so I choose the $5+ option. I figure I bought 1 bulb for $7 and got a backup for free (so next time the blinker needs replacement I won't need to make another purchase).

Are you trolling? I neither mentioned "white" or even "minorities". Hiring based on certain factors is illegal. Period. There are laws that exist. I don't care to reference them. Go look them up yourself. Company's need to take minimum steps to ensure they follow these laws. End of discussion.

No. Speaking generally.

Correct. But Google, Facebook, Yahoo, and every other big company with complicated organizational structures where hiring decisions aren't centralized should be aware that the people they trust to make hiring decision sometimes have selfish motivations behind their decisions. I don't think you'd disagree with the generalized statement that "racist people exist" and extrapolating that to "racist people who make hiring decisions exist" isn't too much of a leap of faith. I'm not saying Google, Facebook, or Yahoo employ racists who make hiring decisions. I'm saying they ought to have some checks and balances in place to guard against allowing illegal practices from occurring within their organizations.

My post was a reply to the question "Why should company's care about this at all?" because I think there are very real reasons why companies should care even if they have no real reason to suspect their hiring managers are acting unlawfully.

Company's aren't supposed to be racist. People are occasionally racist. People do hiring. Hiring is liable to be racist if the people doing the hiring are racist. Company's have a responsibility to monitor the people doing the hiring to minimize racism within that process. If a company does pass over a better qualified minority because of racism (or sexism, for that matter) that is a problem for the company.

Point of consideration that Walmart bullies around smaller suppliers while Amazon is taking a stand against one of the major publishers with Hachette and Warner Bros which is operated by Time Warner who is currently seeking Anti-Trust approval to merge with Comcast.

If anything, Amazon's ability to stand up to Big Media seems to be in the best interest of consumers. Big Media is where the evil monopolies seem to be. Amazon's power over online sales relies on convenience, their customer supplied rating/feedback system, and their pricing policies. Amazon wants to charge small for high quality because cheap crap will be rated as such on Amazon and nobody will buy it. Meanwhile Walmart wants to charge small for low quality because who cares about customers and suppliers if they can earn 20% of half a Trillion bucks each year (http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/wmt/financials).

As a policy Netflix doesn't promote or advertize Redbox Instant.

If I had $2 billion for every time you've said that...

Rob Ford is a good source material for jokes. He should get some form of immunity.

I do not claim to know details... but as you mentioned a remote wipe won't work on a phone that is powered off and there are things known as Faraday Cage that should block signals once the time to power on the device and take evidence off it arrives.

Can you explain to me... are there significant people who go "Off Grid" or are users with solar panels just offsetting part of the cost of their power?

I thought a small percent who have panels are producing more energy than they consume allowing them to "sell" it to the power company which means that they are due some amount of money... but still part of the Grid.