Check the latest blog post for paperback info

Brad –
Thanks much! Hope you enjoy Free Will. And yes, the problem is not persistent, so it’s already more-or-less cleared up, it was just a bit of a jolt.

Thanks to both of you for stopping by!
-Dan

That said, if anyone reading would like some stunningly-produced paperbacks featuring fascinating, funny, and disturbing stories…

The real problem, possibly, isn’t genocidal war or technological accident, but cosmic upheaval. Stars swing past each other, disrupting the orbits of their planets. Stars explode. Galactic cores become active.

Any of these events can eliminate all life on a planet, more efficiently than any technological event. And in many galaxies, and many regions of most galaxies, such cosmic events are common.

Life may be common. Intelligent, technological life may be rare.

Back before the age of instant contact when pagers and cell phones where still the thing of science fiction(Good times)it would be possible to dial a phone number and not get an answer. Think about it for a moment. You directed or tuned your device towards a location you had good reason to believe life existed and got nothing?

Your home is full of life. Surely your home isn’t the only place life exists. So you dial another number at random, and another and still no answer. The phone just rings and rings. Then you cheat (or at least think you’re cheating) and dial a number you know works because your dad said as he left that morning that he’ll be at that number if you needed to reach him.

Still no answer.

It’s all a matter of timing.

We may have already pointed our modern listening devices at the right sliver of the sky where life exists RIGHT NOW. Too bad any sign of it won’t reach us for a million or billion years. As arrogant as it may sound, why can’t we be the first? It takes the violent death of stars to created the elements upon which carbon based life exists. Oh and not just one or two stars either. What’s to say we’re not the first or at least part of the first wave of life in the universe?

Frankly, I find the question a commonplace one of little importance, the answer to which equally meaningless based on our location in the universe. The only way to raise it’s significance would be to shorten the distance between the stars. Till then alone or not, what Mufasa said remains true.

Everything the light touches is our kingdom.

Wasn’t just you. I typed the link wrong. It’s fixed now!
-Dan

Thanks!

There’s a large audience getting used to downloading tons of free books. That audience (and I am part of it) sees a book in prime and assumes/hopes it will go free eventually. So I don’t buy it. Maybe others do. I’m sure some do. That ups visibility again and the wheel continues to turn.

But as an author, I don’t want to close out my Nook fans, by Sony fans or my international fans. Yes, it’s important to get the word out and have people ‘try’ my books. And I’m losing market share and standing here on a rock that really isn’t paying off. Not right now. I have to hope it pays off later.

The program is working for authors right now, although I don’t know that they are making *more* money from the venture. Are they temporarily increasing sales/ranking? Yes. BUT will they make more money? Some will. Some won’t. So the jury is still out.

I love working with Amazon. I’m just not a big fan of this program. I don’t think it helps authors long-term.

Trust me, I to feel the pull of the siren song every so often, and I’m not saying I’d never take advantage of the program, for example, with a new title that wasn’t up anywhere else yet. A period of exclusivity (a short one, for 90 days) for advertising purposes, can be good business. But pulling existing titles from their channels? Hell no–look at what’s involved:

1) It takes about 90 days for a new title to become fully vested in all the storefronts through smashwords (since some stores only update inventories quarterly).
2) Similarly, if I pulled a title, it would take up to 90 days (less, if I timed it right) for it to come down everywhere.
3) At THAT point, I could enroll in KDP Select for 90 days
4) Once the exclusivity peroiod is over, I’d need to re-stock the distribution channels, which can take up to another 90 days.

Suddenly, I’m out 9 *months* of exposure for the chance to play free-days games for 5 *days* over all. Seems pretty steep to me.

Contrast that with using KDP Select for your opening gambit:
1) New story to KDP Select for 90 days.
2) After 90 days, new story goes up everywhere else, which takes up to 90 days.

Now, all you’ve lost is 3 months or so, in exchange for a chance to game your numbers a bit (and if you’re like me, you’ve already got a lot of titles kicking around). This makes some sense as a strategic move.

Thanks for your stopping by and sharing your thoughts
-Dan

You know, I really need to keep reading sensible, unemotional posts like yours and Kris’. When I heard about Select, my initial reaction was no way, don’t want to put all my eggs in one basket.

Should have stayed with that.

But I started reading other blogs, a couple of threads on Kindleboards that talked about Select (from out of nowhere, it seemed to me, because I avoid pricing threads like the plague), and suddenly, I was beginning to doubt myself. What if I pulled all my stuff (all of 4 titles, lol, at this point) off Smashwords? What if one or all of my books (3 novellas in a fantasy series, 1 mini collection of shorts) were downloaded like crazy?

But again, after reading these 2 posts, I realize I was being silly. I only have 4 books uploaded; I’ve still got more to write. It’s all about the numbers, as you said above: if you have 15 products in 15 storefronts, you’ve got 15×15 (read: 225) streams. Now, every time you do any promotion work, you have a better chance of making one or more streams break their dams. But better than that, anytime someone falls in love with one of those books, they have another 14 they can go through.

This confirms my original thought. Thanks!

My pleasure. I only with the circumstances of the sharing were otherwise.
-Dan

What a great video.

-Dan

Either way, in the near future you’ll see paperbacks of:
Sculpting God
Predestination (there was a paperback version, but the cover had some problems, so we pulled it to retool it)
A Ghostly Christmas Present
Smoke Rings
Silent Victor (a.k.a. “Lantham #4,” which will see ebook release before Xmas)
Down From Ten
Throwing Lead (a.k.a. “The Gun Book” which should see ebook by year’s end and paperback early next year)

It’s busy times around here!
-Dan

Also, under the podcast tab above, you’ll find a couple of my books produced this way. If you like Gail’s stuff, you might enjoy the full-cast production of my Down From Ten.

For example: Is public education most effectively administered locally, or at the state level, or at the Federal level?

These are the kind of questions that should be fought over by opposing sides all loyal to the notion of universal literacy and education.

The more pressing problem I see is, again, not directly related to socialism vs. antisocialism, but a question of profligacy. We’ve got two full generations (Boomers and Xers) who have allowed their votes to be bought with extravagant, unsustainable expenditures on programs like Medicare and the military, and who have vigorously opposed any cuts or restructuring of existing programs. It’s not possible to live much longer picking the pocket of GenY and GenZ–it is possible to belt-tighten, rebuild, and wind up in the black in the space of a decade or two. It’s gonna take guts, though, and a lot of determination.

I think we’ve got it in us. Let’s hope more of us think so too!
Thanks much for stopping by, and for the links.
-Dan

One thing I’d also like to point out: in order to curtail much of what is going on, there will be a price we ALL will have to pay. Everything I’m seeing and hearing makes me think that many of the pundits believe that it will always be “someone else” that picks up the tab.

One (should be) obvious example is if we want less government spending than we should be prepared to see some of the government subsidized perks that benefit us increase in cost.

There are no easy answers. Every answer (that I can at least imagine) will come with some pain.

Thanks again.

-Dan

I sense a new Lombard Alchemist tale brewing…
-Dan

I Appreciate Mr Sawyer for bringing this up this discussion, as well as the comments we received both here, though email and twitter.

Seems to me we’re about due for a black swan-style political realignment in this country. Let’s hope it’s a good one!

Thanks for starting my day off with a bright outlook.

–Jeff Brackett

Next time you need a car that size, see if you can get a hold of a Pontiac G8, It might just be a step up. It was designed and built in a country that has a bit more understanding of roads with corners in them than you lot.

Disclaimer: I live in that country.

I don’t have the numbers, but I’m guessing that there’s not a whole lot of overlap between folks who mostly buy Kindle e-books and people who subscribe to Prime (why pay an annual fee for free shipping when most of your commerce is electronic?)

So: if I can get a piece of the Amazon Prime customer pie on top of my monthly Kindle royalties, fantastic. It’s another stream of income for my content.

It would probably help if our economical model would forgo the quarterly reports that encourage short-term profits over long-term sustainable ones.

He has accomplished many great things, but his insistence to operate from talents he doesn’t have only serves to heap more contempt on his fan base.

Please excuse my apalling grammar; it’s time for me to go to sleep.

Whether copyright or patent will govern bioprinting is currently a matter of some dispute. IMHO, patents are FAR preferable, and are more appropriate. The trouble is that software is traditionally copyrightable, while engineering is traditionally patentable, but when you get into genetic engineering and other similar technologies, you have what is unarguably software, and yet also unarguably engineering. If patents win out, we will have a world FAR more conducive to rapid growth and technological evolution (because patents are limited-term protections, expiring after ~20years). If it’s copyrights, with the current effective indefinite copyright term, things could get very, very unpleasant for society as a whole.

On the other bit…

You’re right that most people don’t watch silent movies, but many people DO still watch old detective films, old westerns, John Wayne movies, classic horror, etc. And many people always will (even people for whom such films are not nostalgia). Just as some people still like Bach, or Beethoven, or Schubert and always will. Stuff that strikes the right balance between timelessness and timeliness tends to stick around forever (though I do heartily share your prejudice in favor of the printed word).

Viva le biblioteque
-Dan

It’s one thing to use George Lucas as an object lesson–he’s a cultural icon hugely public figure. He’s also working in another medium than I am, so I can throw peanuts at him as a righteous audience member, rather than a frustrated peer who thinks he could do better

It’s another thing entirely to criticize a peer in public, particularly one who’s both 1) a friend and 2) far better at big swaths of this business than I am. If I had an opinion on what Sigler was doing, I wouldn’t share it unless he were doing something brilliant I thought people should know about.

Fortunately, I am not current on what Scott’s up to, and don’t have an opinion on it specifically, so I can just comment on the broader principles around what you’re describing.

1) Scott is revising his work to editorial demand. Someone’s writing a check. This fits with Heinlein’s rules: the person buying the work has the right to demand minor changes if they don’t pervert your vision of the story. This is, after all, a business.

2) I happen to know that Scott is VERY big on the “leave it alone, move on to the next project” part of writing. He’s lectured me about it before, when I was just learning to listen to that lesson.

3) From the first time I talked to Scott in ’07, he’s always had a unified vision for the Siglerverse. I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s using the editorial demands of crown as a way to massage little continuity issues around the edges so that his grand vision comes out the way he wants it.

4) Scott’s still doing original work. Every year, two or three new novels, last I checked. And I suspect he’s got a couple dozen more in the queue, and that a lot of them are going to be really fun.

Talking about this makes me realize I should get around to reading “Contagious,” since “Infected” has always been my favorite of his books. Deeply creepy, that one.

As to how well his alterations are working, I don’t know. And, frankly if I did, I wouldn’t tell you, except maybe if I thought they were all brilliant, which I probably wouldn’t, because I’m a really unforgiving reader. (This is why I don’t do book reviews very often).

Nonetheless, I’m glad you found the post useful as a window nito the things that can go wrong with the creative process

-Dan

You raise a number of fair points, one of which points out the part of my reasoning that I’m least confident of, the other of which points up a part of my argument I didn’t articulate well.

On the first point, that of the lack of attractiveness to large corps because of the diffuse money density of long-tail products, you may well be correct. I actually consider this the weakest point of my argument. To continue to play my own advocate (and don’t I look fetching in this pointy beard with a pitchfork), let me re-post it this way: As resources become less expensive to exploit, a diffuse resource base becomes more attractive. In mining, you see it with the rising value of new mining methods that can extract a greater percentage of resources even as the commodity price of the extracted resource falls because of rising availability. With something like beer, the rise of craft brewing has spurred large companies like Anheiser-Busch to move from a handful of products to literally dozens, each far more targeted at niche markets, so there exist already real-world examples of companies moving in this kind of direction. I suppose the real question is: How far will this trend ultimately go? And how fast will it go there?

I personally am beginning to suspect that the trend is going to go EXTREMELY far, though I’m not expecting the revolution to play out quickly.

On the other point, the one I didn’t articulate well…
You mention that in your final paragraph that copyright-dominated industries are the ones best positioned to exploit this situation profitably. I completely agree. And I think you’re dead right about what it means for the small content provider. But for Big Media I think you’re wrong–they are already embracing the long tail (reluctantly, and some companies have already gone under due to recalcitrance–I suspect more bankruptcies and mergers and spinoffs await us in the next few years). Look at how many properties are being resurrected from the vaults and released to DVD or streaming. Studios make a far bigger percentage of their income now off of long-tail products than they do off their front-list blockbusters. It’s the stable ground the rest is based on.

So, the point I didn’t articulate clearly is this: We’ve already come this far in the last fifteen years. How much farther is that going to go? So far, the long tail is making a difference to balance sheets, but not to front-office financing decisions. Will the ripples reach that far? If they do, I think the effects will be far more profound than anyone is prepared for.

The other aspect of this point I didn’t articulate well is this:
As JIT manufacturing becomes more economical, as rapid-prototyping becomes the norm (think 3D printing at xerox prices, electronic trace printing even cheaper, and bio-printing in the same price range–all three of which are a reality in the next ten years), the border between what constitutes a “Copyright dominated industry” and what is a traditional industry.

Right now, perhaps 10% of the material world around us is software, and perhaps another 40-50% uses software to control its systems. But those ratios are already changing. What happens when 70%+ of the entire world IS software (or its end result)? In such a world, ALL (or nearly all) industries are copyright-dominated, and operate (at least in part) by the economic rules that software, books, and photography operate by now.

Would love to hear more of your thoughts–or anyone else’s–on this! Thanks very much for coming by

-Dan

One reason that large companies ignore upstart challengers is because those challengers are only generating small profits. A billion dollar company that sees a challenger growing its business to $50 million can’t be concerned. Yes, that challenger may double in size to $100 million and become a huge success, but it is still only a tenth of the money flowing through the billion dollar company. While not quite a rounding error, a 5-10% growth is merely expected and wouldn’t represent the same scale of success as it did for the challenger.

The problem with long tail revenue is that it is usually not concentrated enough to be of interest to a Big organization.

One good example is your Firebird. There is a thriving company that has continued making the Studebaker Avanti over the past years. They are working with original designs and updated mechanicals, but have maintained a profitable niche for a very long time. Certainly not enough to keep Studebaker running, but for the smaller scale, it was certainly fine. Better to look for a similar future for the Firebird than to hope that sales and profits will grow to levels that would support a GM.

Drug companies are highly constrained by the patent laws that work greatly against a long tail revenue scheme. Once a patented drug becomes public domain after 17 years, any manufacturer can make that drug and select their own level of profit (with the normal race to the bottom). That means that the drug must earn back its development costs and all the costs of failed attempts at other drugs in the 17 years of a patent term for it to turn a profit. After that point, others will be making the drug without having incurred the research costs and will undercut the price.

Innovative, disruptive technologies are also dominated by other factors. In addition to patents (and entrepreneurs love holding a patent on their development), they are continuously fighting for attention and hoping that the market doesn’t move away from their technology. It is very rare that a disruptive technology is in a secure market. Just as an example, look at the music player market. LP vinyl was displaced by tape that offered a choice in fidelity (tiny cassettes that were lower fidelity up through big reel-to-reel that was much higher fidelity). Portability won and cassettes with low fidelity displaced. Then CD appeared that offered higher fidelity and, eventually, matched cassette portability. That was challenged by digital encoding on tiny hard drives (or flash drives) at again lower fidelity. And now we appear to be shifting to streaming music at even lower fidelity than that we previously experienced with MP3s.

Was there any time in that timeline that a disruptive technology could have waited decades to mature and for the market to recognize it and shift to it? The long tail doesn’t always work.

The place where the long tail works most effectively is in the copyright arena and that is because of the very long term that copyright rights have expanded to. I don’t want to open the very contentious argument about the appropriate length of copyright and the necessity of works moving to the public domain, but the very long copyright term is what allows a company or author to keep earning smaller amounts over a very long time. Since we are discussing this in an ebook oriented forum, this is what most are familiar with.

Copyright dominated industries can exploit the long tail most profitably because they can limit the rights of others to profit from a particular work over that long term. But working against that is the need for big profits to feed Big Media on a quarterly basis. The long tail is the patient bonanza for the individual or small team. They can license content over and over to Big Media and live with the smaller profits from year to year, and license it again later.

I am a Protestant Christian, by the way.

As far as what it’s about…you’ll have to wait for the back of cover copy

Throwing Lead: The Writer’s Guide to Guns and the People who use them

The Auto Motive (the first in a trilogy of YA adventure books with a female protagonist)

The Last Uploader (hard SF post-singularity adventure)

Thanks for stopping by

I absolutely agree that they are two distinct forms, each with their own special strengths. How can I most effectively let the Parsec personages, (as well as other award bestowing bodies) know my experience in the podcasting world?

These awarding bodies need to know the forms which they oversee. All the forms of podcasting are great, yet they vary widely in the way they present literature.

How do we educate them, and maybe learn more about the process as we do so?

Thanks to everyone else for contributing too! Keep ‘em coming

-Dan

In the end, I think it is pretty cool how the landscape keeps changing. Makes it so these awards need to keep changing with the times though.

I agree whole-heartedly. I ReTweeted you link to this post/letter & can I suggest everyone email PARSECAWARDS@GMAIL.COM this link, or the tweet, or your original thoughts on the matter

Politely displaying the size of audience behind this request to the Parsecs might go a long way in helping them come to internal agreement on creating a FullCast category.

Thanks again Dan, eloquent as always.

Defining audio drama by number of voices (3 or more) is a mistake. A full cast audiobook with as many as 25 voices is still closer to a straight read novel than an audio drama. In a full cast audio-book the voices and effects are supportive. The information is in the prose, and would be similarly conveyed in a straight read.

Audio drama comes from a script, which any script writer will tell you is a very different form of storytelling. This is the defining difference. Script vs story should be the category difference. If number of voices is an additional category distinction, it should only occur after the form of the writing has been separated.

I understand separating full cast stories from straight read, but putting them in with audio drama is actually more out of whack than leaving them with straight read in the first place. I think there are enough good full cast productions out there to have three forms represented in the parsec awards.

Why? Because to turn the story into an audio drama, they would have to rewrite it. Significant changes are required to turn a good manuscript into a good script. These markets don’t buy the rights to change an author’s story, so they don’t. Instead, they produce it in fullcast.

Short fiction markets that authors can actually put on your writing resumes are extremely valuable to the community. They reach out into the author community as a whole, not just the podcast community. Managing a slush pile, paying authors for their work, and producing that work in a timely fashion are serious challenges.

I personally think that paying markets deserve their own category, but even the recognition of a fullcast category would help. All of their multi-voice stories are fullcast, and they all get lumped in with the flashier audio dramas.

An audio drama is a script with little or no narration. It looks like a movie script. The music and sound effects play the roll of the narrator.

A fullcast production is a book read by a crew of actors. Structurally, it has more in common with a solo-read novel than with an audio drama.

The requirements for writing and producing audio dramas and fullcast novels are very different. They are apples and oranges. Calling a category “audio drama” and then forcing fullcast productions to compete in that category is unfair to both art forms.

There are plenty of candidates for both audio drama and fullcast novel categories. The Parsecs have created far more obscure categories in the past, which sometimes have fewer than 5 nominees. For instance, this year they are trialing a category for “Best Youth Driven Speculative Fiction Podcast.” And yet there’s no category for Fullcast? Come on, guys. It looks like you don’t value us.

If you’ve got proofs you just can’t sit on, I won’t say no. But I am in the midst of proofs with my normal proofing team. Completely up to you–I’m most interested on you enjoying the story.

As for the prizes, yes, they’re four separate prizes. They’ll be drawn for subsequently.

-Dan

Yes, that is, indeed, what it means.
-Dan

I’ll check that out. Thanks!

Dan –

Oooh, that’s a good one. I shall put it on the pile of potentials.

-Dan

2) I have a similar understanding of cyberlaw stemming from RIAA related lawsuits and obscenity prosecutions early in the era.

3) That is the problem, isn’t it? And they’re now saying “trust us.” In situations like this, I can’t help but remember what Lazarus Long said:
Money is truthful. When a man speaks of honor, make him pay cash.

Also, if you’re ever looking for a good technical book on firearm design(especially the operating principles behind different mechanisms), Chinn’s ‘The Machine Gun’ is floating around in free .pdf form online various places and well worth using as a reference source. It’s five volumes each ranging from around 500 pages to 700+ pages of gory details.

http://mac.appstorm.net/general/app-news/three-reasons-you-shouldnt-drop-dropbox/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+MacAppStorm+%28Mac+AppStorm%29

Actually, I think you did a pretty good job of making my point for me, instead of countering it.

On the indie market, the Author IS the Publisher, but it is the publisher that must hustle to sell books. You still don’t sell books to the readers as the author, you sell them as the publisher. It just happens that the two of you sit in the same body. I know it sounds like a spurious argument, but if you follow the logic it fits.

In the legacy market, the author sells to an editor, who buys on behalf of a publisher. The publisher wants the content because it gives access to an audience who will pay for the content. Note that phrase “access to an audience”. That doesn’t mean that the author already HAS the audience, although as you said, it is a bonus to the author if one does already have an established audience. It is access to a theoretical audience that may already exist or may be an emerging market. No matter how good a new author’s book is, no publisher will “buy” it if they don’t believe there is an audience for it.

The examples you cited only took into account authors who were new to mainstream publishing, but established authors also follow the same model. Their customers are editors and publishers, but they will only buy their product if it give access to a sizable audience. There are talented authors out there who are still writing, but can’t sell anything anymore because the publishers don’t believe that they will give them access to a sufficiently large audience. This decline may be because the author’s quality dropped, because their chosen genre is in disfavor, because the author did something to alienate their audience, or a dozen other reasons. A bad reputation can ruin an established author, even though the authors stories are still high quality.

Authors DO need to appeal to the reader, because they need to produce something that the publisher can continue to sell on to someone else. But that reader is not the Author’s customer. Ford doesn’t sell a car to you and me, they sell to dealers. But they still have to sell a product the dealers will be able to sell on to someone else.

Doc

Regarding authors and customers, I think you’ll be hard pressed to find more than one or two examples where this is actually the case. In fact, I can think of only two at the moment where that argument might hold water. One is Sigler, who had ~40k fans or so when he finally landed the deal with Random House. The other is Amanda Hocking, who had hundreds of thousands (if not millions–the numbers are hard to come by) of sales with fans raving about her and making a lot of noise online.

Of the two cases, I think the most you can say about Sigler is that his fanbase was a deal sweetener–it put him in a better bargaining position, as he could have walked and done very well self-publishing (as he later did for the GFL series). It might even be the thing that distinguished him in the first place. But in the world of publishing, I gotta tell you, 40,000 is not a lot of sales for a thriller author. If you don’t perform significantly over that number, many publishing companies are likely to cut you from their lists even if you turn a modest profit for them.

Hocking might be a different matter, as her numbers are up in the low end of what publishing companies want to see out of someone in her genre writing in the solid-to-high midlist at an early career point.

In either case, had Sigler not significantly grown his readership when he went into trade and mass market circulation, his publisher might well have canceled his contract. It’s a very common thing. I suspect the same will happen with Hocking if her readership doesn’t grow significantly as a result of her mainstream deals.

So I don’t think that an author is selling his fan base to publishers–most authors (way north of 95%) who get large press deals do so with a first novel and no previously established fan base. What is true is that with books that are intermediated by a publishing house and stories published through magazines (as opposed to indie publishing either) the editors are the customer and the story is the product. The readers then become the customers of the publishing house, even if they are fans of the author–and the author has to walk the difficult line of pleasing the readers (so they’ll buy from the publisher) and of pleasing his editors and their bosses. (Which can make an author crazy, which is why most just write the best they can and hope to hell the continue to have market appeal).

So, the reader is the indirect customer of the author in legacy publishing, and is the direct customer in indie publishing. Potential market appeal (or, in at least two cases, proven market appeal)–not established fan bases–are what authors sell to publishers. The numbers of podcast fans, for example, are simply usually too small to do much other than raise an eyebrow at the editor’s desk (it shows the author will hustle, that they’ll take some of the marketing burden off, that they are comfortable dealing with the public, etc–all of which can translate to lower costs/risk).

This is a very different paradigm from what Google, Facebook, and other cloud services operate under. And I’m not saying that paradigm is inherently evil–only that it becomes dangerous if you interact with such companies under the false impression that you’re the customer.

The person who pays the money for something to exist is the customer. Google’s customers are advertising and marketing companies. Ditto for Facebook. Author’s customers are either the audience (for indies) or the editors (for legacy), and in legacy pub the publisher’s customers are the distributors, and the distributor’s customers are the bookstores, and the bookstores sell to readers. With that kind of a supply chain, is it any wonder that the business of getting books to market has, until recently, been so fraught with bother for all involved?

Anyhow, that’s what I’ve got. Would love to hear your further thoughts on the matter. Thanks for stopping by, Doc!
-Dan

What I find interesting is that I’ve been thinking for a while that authors should be telling their readers the same thing: “You are not the customer, you are the product.” An author doesn’t sell books to readers, but instead sells access to an audience to publishers. That doesn’t mean that the readers shouldn’t be well cared for, simply that they don’t have the influence they think they have.

Tempted to do my own blog post on this…

Doc

Ya se puede descargar el JDK 7 Está Facebook atrapado en MySQL ? Hablando por experiencia, dudo que estén…