Occultist? You're scared he's going to spill state secrets to Satan?
Not occultist, OP said oculist. You know, a 17th-century optometrist.
... With the ebook you get a
This applies equally to physical books.
You left out the word "revocable" in the original. With a paper book, the publisher cannot come into my home and take the book back.
WHAT? So, authors don't want to have a large price gap between a real book and an ebook? Do they NOT realize that with the real book you get an actual real book. With the ebook you get a limited, revocable license to read the book but only in the format you purchased your license for. I'm still wondering why the price gap isn't larger.
I think some publishers and authors "get it." Lucius Shepard's last two hardcover books were published by Subterranean Press, and came out with boutique retail pricing (~$40, if I recall). I bought *both* of them, because, well, it's Lucius Shepard, and every word is golden. Amazon.com offered both at quite nice discounts from MSRP, so that's where I made my purchase.
THEN, I spotted that Amazon has also released Kindle ebooks of both, at $5.99 and $6.99. This is, to me, a stunning example of price elasticity. These prices are so outrageously low that I happily bought the ebooks IN ADDITION TO the pbooks.
I have the best of both worlds. My treasured paper copies won't have to suffer from being thrown around on a car seat or taken to the beach, and I have the reassuring solidity of a real copy that isn't subject to licensing.
So, in some cases, increasing the price gap even further can lead to that most elusive thing in the publishing world: repeat sales.
After two months on tofacitinib [an FDA-approved arthritis drug] at 10 mg daily, the patient's psoriasis showed some improvement, and the man had grown scalp and facial hair — the first hair he'd grown there in seven years. After three more months of therapy at 15 mg daily, the patient had completely regrown scalp hair and also had clearly visible eyebrows, eyelashes, and facial hair, as well as armpit and other hair, the doctors said."
How do you distinguish between intentional and unintentional changes? How much storage overhead do you need to keep all changes so that you can roll back any unintentional change?
I'm only a rocket scientist, not a CS person, but it seems intuitive to me. If it's an intentional change, then the new version will have a later last-modified date than the back-up. If the hash of the back-up copy made at the time it was written matches a hash calculated at the time of the second back-up, then the integrity of the back-up is confirmed. If the active copy has not been intentionally changed in the interval, and its hash no longer matches the other two, then the active should be discarded in favor of the back-up. I'm sure you can do the mental figuring for the equivalent to detect if the back-up rather than the active has bitrotted.
The challenge arrives if you have *both* intentional and unintentional changes to the same file between successive back-ups. To exclude unintentional changes, you would have to do hashes every time you save/compile/whatever,as well as keep a keystroke log of the edits. Then, you would have to execute the exact same change process on the back-up copy, repeating the process described above. It would be incredibly resource-intensive (essentially having a 'bot duplicate the work you have performed between back-ups), but it would sure be thorough.
Lord, I HOPE this is not an original idea. If I just invented it, and somebody tries to patent it later, you're in for a world of hurt.