Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Controlling prices? (Score 1) 192

by Austrian Anarchy (#47490781) Attached to: Amazon Isn't Killing Writing, the Market Is

Self-published books are looked down on for a reason. I've "bought" some self-published stuff for $0 on amazon. It's pretty bad. It's basically as if the author had an idea for a story, put it down on paper, and submitted the pdf. The stories have potential sometimes, but the writing is just bad. A mix of short 4 word sentences and half a page run on sentences. Descriptions that are just repeated every several pages. Whole books written in the format of: I walked through the door. I looked at the guy. I said this. He said that. I walked back to the other place. I shot the alien. I picked him up. The alien was gross and ugly. I carried him back to the first place.

Just because you self-publish doesn't mean you don't need an editor.

Be that as it may, those are not the people we are talking about here. The topic is published authors at particular publishing houses whining about the retail price placed on their books. Books which they could have easily published, using exactly the same words, without a "publisher."

Comment: Controlling prices? (Score 2) 192

by Austrian Anarchy (#47490193) Attached to: Amazon Isn't Killing Writing, the Market Is
Any author can publish nearly anything he wants through Kindle electronically, or CreateSpace in paper and he has control of the price at either one. Both have competitors too, like LightningSource, that have better access to dirt-world bookstores and provide electronic publishing services. If these authors want to be paid more per book, there is not a blessed thing stopping them from doing it right now.

Comment: Re:Helicopters (Score 1) 133

Well, having been in an (German) Army Helicopter unit the "tight interaction" between ground troops and flying units requires stuff that fixed-wing aircrafts are not really good at. They can't stand still in the air, the cant land vertically in tight spaces (without burning people with jet exhaust like a VTOL jet would) , etc...

Basically anything fast/long-range/big is usually handled by the air force planes (or helicopters), while slow/agile/close coordination with ground troops is handled by the army air corps. Usually with helicopters, although some planes are used by armies, like the Britten-Norman Defender by the British army.

Very true, and try getting the Air Force to support a JAAT (speaking late coldwar here) without 30 days notice or some BS. If you needed close air support, the Navy and the Marines needed to be nearby.

Comment: Re:Helicopters (Score 5, Informative) 133

I heard that the army uses helicopters not because they want to but because they have to (Air Force having jurisdiction over planes existing since late 40s as a seperate branch) and that in many missions they use helicopters planes would actually be superior.

Is this true?

The Key West Agreement that formed the Air Force had a stipulation that the Army would not have any armed aircraft. Lather that was re-interpreted as no armed FIXED-WING aircraft.

Side note on the Cheyenne, the helicopter that was to be the scout helicopter for the Cheyenne attack aircraft evolved into the AH-1 Cobra. IIRC, the original scout helicopter for the Cobra was the OH-6, later replaced by the OH-58.

"Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -- William E. Davidsen

Working...