Besides, as noted in the post, this particular journal charges a fee for publishing
I'm not too familiar with open access math journals, but I beleive pretty much all open access journals in the sciences charge for publication.
He's a Bishop. He has a temple recommend. He still goes to church, even on the campaign trail. Sure, he had to be a little shifty on his opinions of abortion, but that's because he's a politician.
Oh dear. You really don't know devout people.
They don't judge others by religious education, but by things like morality. Does he lie? Does he cheat? Will he walk all over people for personal gain?
If yes, he's not devout. Period. That's how a Mormon who cares about his/her faith will view him. They may still vote for him (most of the country votes for idiots anyway), but they won't think of him as religious.
Sure, but the people who make important policy decisions are, in all likelihood, not very devout.
That will change if Romney wins.
Wow. You really don't know Mormons. Had he been an ordinary dude not running for office, most LDS adherents would die of laughter at the suggestion that he's devout.
Yes there is. Here's what it says in the slashdot quote: "One major study shows that 74% of Pakistanis now consider the U.S. an enemy."
The summary is discussing several studies. This isn't the one where they interviewed 130+ people.
Of the 176,745,364 people in Pakistan (according to World Bank), they chose 130 and managed to get more than half who were related to the "474 to 884" people who've died.
Not at all sure what your point is. I haven't read the report, but your comment is without merit.
They targeted a lot of people who were relatives of the deceased. They didn't randomly sample the country and then happen to get over 65 who were related to the deceased.
And the problem with that is...?
... and they've never actually met!
Don't be fooled by the raw numbers. Look at how many meetups they've had, and whether any of those Meetups actually occurred. My one lists 3 past meetups, but the location had never been finalized - no one actually got together and met up.
No Al-Jazeera English?
No BBC?
Really?
Authors are likely getting the same cut (or less). So that mostly leaves lining the pockets of Amazon.
If you put aside the top publishing companies, as well as the top bestselling authors, many/most authors are getting a better deal with ebooks than with print books. What's happening is that since the distribution/production costs have gone down, Amazon is offering authors a higher percentage than they normally get from a traditional publisher. I suspect some publishers are doing likewise to prevent authors from ditching them and selling directly on Amazon.
In any case, we're straying away from the point. If you want to know why the big publishers are charging as much, I suggest you read these articles. In a nutshell, the big publishers did not anticipate the change occurring as rapidly as it did, and had made several long term (e.g. 20+ years) financial commitments (norm for that and other industries) back in the early 2000's. They can't dump a lot of their facilities as a cost saving measure as they've committed to paying for them for the long term.
Amazon came and messed it up for them (and I'm not sympathetic to the publishers). But the point is a lot of other forces come into play in determining the final cost. Had the ebook revolution not occurred, they would have lost had they not made such investments. It was a gamble they were used to making, and they played the wrong hand.
Sony? Nook? Ipad? Sure selection helps Amazon but they also have a very good product and they are ahead in the game than any of the other alternatives that i know of.
I really can't speak of today, but less than 2 years ago when I was in the market for one, both the Sony and the Nook were well ahead of the Kindle.
The Kindle did not have a touch sensitive display. When you read news ePubs like I do, it's almost useless.
The Kindle did not support ePubs (not sure it does even now). There goes the option to buy books from different stores, or the option to find a better deal. Or the option to check out books from the library (in those days, none of the libraries I checked supported the Kindle - only in the past year did my local one add Kindle support). I think there were other formats the Kindle did not support which many other ereaders did. If it's hard for me to buy epubs from other stores on today's Kindle, then it's still a crappy option.
At the time, the Kindle's support for PDFs was poor. The others weren't that much better, to be honest, but Kindle usually ended last when it came to handling PDFs.
If I could find the notes I had written comparing some 5-6 different ereader brands, I could probably list more deficiencies. Sure, one or two of the brands were worse than the Kindle, but the Sony and the Nook (in those days) were better. Today may be a different story (the Sony is ridiculously expensive).
The Kindle started off with a bang. They just failed to stay ahead of the competition for a while and let others catch up.
$10 from Amazon in paperback or kindle format, less than that from other sellers, and less than 1/5th that used. That's just one I know to be ridiculous from memory. How is it the same price to pulp a tree, print it, package it, and ship it to my house as it is to copy a digital file and send it over the internet (not even over wireless networks since most of the new Kindle's are WiFi only)?
I'm getting tired of this argument.
You're living in a fantasy world where the price of commodities is always dictated by production costs.
It may be true for expensive physical products, but when the price is low (as $10 is compared to a $500 tablet), the price is dominated by other factors.
Of course, the smart publisher would not sell a license to Amazon. Perhaps it's because my knowledge of the matter is admittedly incomplete, but I fail to see what leg these publishers have to stand on, considering.
Your so-called smart publisher would not value his brains when he has to shut down as a result.
Amazon has a huge edge on ebook sales - ask any publisher how many of their ebooks are sold on Amazon vs all other venues combined.
People don't go for the best products on the market. Everyone I know other than myself bought a Kindle instead of better alternatives. Their argument always was: "Oh, your device may be better, but Amazon has the largest selection."
"OK, what ebooks do you want that can only be bought at Amazon?"
No answer. Because there aren't any. Sure Amazon really does have a larger selection, but no one I personally know wants any of the exclusively Amazon ebooks anyway.
But would a consumer do that analysis? No. Not even when it's pointed out to them before they buy.
Guess how many of these Kindle owners buy ebooks from anywhere other than Amazon?
0.
So yeah, a publisher can say, "Nah, we won't sell on Amazon" to which Jeff Bezos will throw some change their way saying "Here're some pennies for when you become homeless."
I suspect the article is wrong about hunger. Compared to the 80's, the world has fewer famines. The absolute number of hungry people may be up, but as a percentage of the global population, it's probably lower than in the 80's.
According to who, Microsoft? Gee, I can't think of any reason they might want to lie about this.
That argument applies equally well to all those who whine about low pay and not being able to get a job.
That's pretty much the ultimate ""your own fault" approach. There is a fairly widespread subset of th epopulation that thinks that any ailment is the sick person's fault.
I don't know if there's a formal term for it, but I've heard it referred to as the "Just World Fallacy". People assume the world is fair, and thus if something bad happens to someone, it's his fault - either he took actions that led to his misfortune, or he failed to take actions to prevent it.
Basically, people who invoke it need to feel secure about the world. They want to believe such stuff won't happen to them.
Anyway, as for the GP's theories, I've seen research that shows that things like taking care of your health, aerobics, etc are far more likely to help older folks' brains solve problems than keeping them active with technical stuff (mathematics, puzzles, etc).
They changed the immigration rules for Canada in 2008 - now it's tougher to get in unless you're in the right profession.
Mechanical Engineer? Civil? Electrical? Programmer? Sorry, you're not eligible to apply. They reduced the allowed professions to a few. Within engineering I think it's only mining/petroleum (guess why).
If you have a job offer, then it's a different story.
It's later than you think, the joint Russian-American space mission has already begun.
