Category Archives: Personal

Apr 12 2013

The Huffington Post is Gay

Me: The Huffington Post really has a tendency to fly off the deep end. Check out this article.

You: Vaccines Produce Homosexuality?

Me: Crazy right? Some old Italian (so-called) doctor still thinks being gay is a disease. Some days I just can’t wait for these old bigots to kick the bucket so their lame prejudices can die with them.

You: That’s a little harsh. You can hardly blame the elderly for their prejudices. It’s the way they were raised. Fifty years ago, being gay was practically synonymous with being a pedophile. Is it any wonder they have such differing opinions.

Me: This isn’t a differing opinion. It’s morally wrong.

You: I’m not disagreeing with you on that point. But from their perspective, if being gay is akin to pedophilia, can you blame them for thinking that being gay is the morally wrong choice?

Me: Yes. They need to update their world view. Homosexual behavior is nearly universal in the animal kingdom.

You: Come on. You know most people don’t stay abreast with current scientific news. Especially the Baby Boomers, an entire generation of elderly and soon to be elderly, with a world view filled with skepticism for authority figures, like scientists.

Me: Don’t get me started with the Baby Boomers and their New Age – Egalitarian – Everybody’s opinion is equal bull crap. Some people become experts and their opinions bear more weight than others. They should deal with it.

**SHOUTS** Hey old people: Science! It works bitches!

Getting back on point, this isn’t new news. I first started hearing about traits of homosexuality being universal over a decade ago. This research has been ongoing since the 80′s. That’s 25 to 30 years they’ve had the chance to acquaint themselves with modern science and reality in general.

You: Try not to alienate too many people will ya? I thought you wanted people to read this blog. Your thoughts are all over the place. What point is it you’re trying to make?

Me: Hmm, what point indeed… I think I’ll go right back to to the top: The Huffington Post. I firmly believe printed news is effectively dead. Which means those of us who want quality news are going to have to look for it online. Unfortunately, the masses tend to shun actual science news. Even worse, most people will head straight to the low hanging fruit when it comes to news aggregation. I think it’s the responsibility of modern news organizations to report the news accurately. They should filter out obvious nonsense.

Just because someone writes a press release, it doesn’t mean you have to print a story based on that press release. On the contrary, you could even print a story saying: “Hey! Look at this old bigot and his fake scientific bologna.”

You: Now who should update their world view? Besides, the article isn’t uncritical. The author states, “Some of Vanoli’s arguments, however, have been disputed for more than 30 years.”

Me: True, but not really true. This style of reporting is uncritical in my opinion. By treating “all opinions as equal” this automatically lends credibility to a guy who is an obvious fraud as a doctor. Consider his own words:

“The problem will especially be present in the next generations, because when gays have children, the children will carry along with them the DNA of their parent’s illness. Because homosexuality is a disease,…”

He’s talking as if being gay is a disease that one can contract, but he’s also talking as if being gay is genetic and passed on through DNA. Which is it?

You: In his defense, their are some diseases that can be passed on from mother to unborn child. But I get your point, most of those diseases are passed through the blood and if being gay is a disease that passes through the blood how does it also get passed through DNA? Of course, you’re also missing the point that gay people don’t breed in the numbers that heterosexual people manage, so how are we going to be inundated with gay people in the coming generations?

Me: Oh, I wasn’t forgetting that. I just found it too obvious to mention. Like if being gay is passed through the blood, say from mother to child, why don’t EMT’s, doctors, and nurses who get exposed to other people’s blood suddenly become gay?

You: I’m sure he’d say that heterosexual people so exposed are adults and already have their sexual identity set, or something along those lines.

Me: That’s called “special pleading“. It’s a logical fallacy that people should be taught to see through and respectable news organizations should reinforce proper logic in their readers by asking the “next question” rather than taking his comments at face value. There are plenty of experts out there that can refute this guys nonsense and expose it for the mystical mumbo-jumbo that it is.

I’m not even a medical doctor and I can see through this crap. What’s wrong with the reporter? You see, I do live in the real world, and I know most people aren’t going to critically read that article. Which means that even if they don’t buy into it, they’ll have the nagging suspicion that maybe, just maybe, there might be something to what this quack says when very obviously there is not.

You: So what do you suggest? People stop reading the news?

Me: No. People should stop reading generic news aggregation sites like the Huffington Post. I know they’re convenient, but getting your news from more specialized sources, written by appropriate experts that take a more critical look at the news can only improve one’s understanding.

You: Basically, you’re asking people to push themselves mentally? You got out of education because the average student all but refuses to intellectually push themselves and you want people to do it with their daily news because it’s good for them?

Me: Yes?

You: I thought you said you were living in the real world?

Apr 3 2013

The Corporate Touch – A Vendor Contract of Responsibility

You: You’re not going to go on another rant are you?

Me: I don’t know. I think it’s building though.

You: I don’t understand why anyone would go on a rant like you do. I don’t even know why you’re so upset. It didn’t happen to you.

Me: Maybe not. But we’ve all been there. At some time or another, with some company or another, we’ve all been there.

You: Probably, but just ranting about it doesn’t solve anything. If you want to change something, you have to act on it.

Me: That’s not true. Every piece of social change starts with people just talking about it. If people don’t talk about it first, then most don’t even realize there’s a problem.

You: Fine. Go ahead.

Me: I’ll start with a brief description of my friend’s problem: I’ll make everything anonymous, because the actual companies involved aren’t important. This sort of thing happens all the time, and scandals have been discovered where presumably reputable companies rip-off their own customers. Take American Express and Bank of America for example. 

Anyway, my friend recently bought a new cell phone online direct from one of the major cell companies. Somehow the Carrier screwed up and charged her debit card twice totaling over $500. As a result one of her checks for under $50 to a local grocery store bounced. She should have had plenty of money in her checking account, but due to the error, the bank is going to charge her $35, the grocery store is going to charge her $25 and post her “bad” check on their wall of shame. Now she’s being charged for fees greater than the value of the check. Of course, to add insult to egregious injury, she had to spend over an hour on the phone arguing with the carrier about whether or not she was charged twice. When they finally admitted their mistake, all she got was an apology and a promise that the money would be refunded to her account within a couple of weeks. Weeks to get her money back!

You: It’s egregious.

Me: Don’t be patronizing. My friend, along with two-thirds of this country lives paycheck-to-paycheck. Just because you may be one of the persons in three who doesn’t have to worry about it, doesn’t mean it’s not a problem.

You: True, but it’s not the problem you’re currently ranting about.

Me: Fair enough. What I’m really ranting about is the lack of protections people have against these sociopathic corporations.

You: Did you watch “The Corporation” recently? (Aside: YouTube Link)

Me: I haven’t seen that in years. Like any documentary, it’s a bit agenda oriented, but it does make some fair points. Now stop interrupting! You’re screwing up my chi!

You: Sorry.

Me: As I was saying, I think consumers should hold corporations accountable for their actions. I think their customers should respond in kind, tit-for-tat.

You: How so?

Me: Whenever you open a bank account, sign a cell phone contract, TV cable contract, all those types of corporate contracts where you are forced to agree to their policies, extra fees, etc. I think someone, presumably a lawyer, needs to draw up a contract where the company has to sign to get you as a customer. A contract that will hold the company liable for their mistakes and dare I say, punish them for when they screw a customer over.

You: You speak as if your friend is without recourse.

Me: She has options. Mostly, she’ll have to go to the store and the bank and explain things and HOPEFULLY, they’ll understand and not charge her the extra fees, but they are under no legal obligation as far as I know. Maybe they are, but I doubt it. If she is forced to pay the fees, and the carrier won’t readily give her the money to cover the fees, her only option is to sue the national carrier in small claims court. She’ll win, but how much time and effort is that going to take? What recourse does she have for her time?

We have Customer Agreements, why is it the customer doesn’t have a Vendor Agreement available to them? A document stating the company is responsible for their mistakes and requires them to make good on those mistakes, posthaste, lest they start paying extra fees.

You: You’re dreaming.

Me: I may be dreaming now, but if people are going to demand a minimal level of social responsibility to protect the little guy/gal, it has to start somewhere. Someone has to start the conversation.

Mar 21 2013

Some Days

You: What are you doing?

Me: Uhhh-I’m looking to procrastinate from working.

You: You really should get to work.

Me: I know. I’m rationalizing that I don’t have a lot to do until I get to the courthouse later this afternoon.

You: I see. But, if you’re not going to do some real work, why don’t you get some writing done?

Me: I was just thinking that. I thought a quick blog post might get the writing motor running.

You: How’s that been going? The writing, not the blog post.

Me: Alright. Not as productive as I would like, but I’ve managed to get in three thousand words this past week. So I haven’t been completely useless.

You: Not bad. It’s at least a little something.

Me: Still, if I’m going to procrastinate, I really should learn to be productive with my procrastinations. You know, rather than watch TV or some other time waster, like a browser game, or some other mindless nonsense, I’ll do some cleaning, or go to the store. Other things I generally budget time for, I’m trying to get done during my unproductive periods.

You: That’s probably a good idea.

Me: Thanks. … You’re being awfully nice today. Why is that?

You: Nice? What do you mean?

Me: You’re not being critical, sarcastic, or ironic.

You: That’s being nice?

Me: For You, it kind of is.  Besides, some days, I think that’s as nice as the world gets.

You: **Sigh** Sadly, you’re probably right… About the latter, not the former.

Me: That’s more like it. Contrariness for its own sake.

You: Whatever.

Me: Something has to be bothering you. You’re much too subdued.

You: I don’t know. Maybe it’s just one of those days.

Me: What does that mean? I’ve never really understood what a “those days” are.

You: Like I said. I don’t know. Ever have a day where you’re sort of uninspired; Not up or down; Not happy or sad. You’re just Being. You’re just numb.

Me: Sure. We all have “those days”. I think those are the days where it’s most important to motivate yourself into doing something. Preferably something you enjoy. If you can push through, be productive. Make yourself enjoy the day in spite of yourself. I think those days are the most satisfying. It’s like you took a little something away from the soul-sucking aspects of the world and gave it back to yourself.

You: Hmmm. **Nods** I like the sound of that. You should get on that.

Mar 4 2013

Wound Up

Me: When I get bound up I find a pound of carrots will usually do the trick by the next day.

You: Wha? … What? I said, “wound up”. You should do a post about being “wound up”.

Me: Oh, … so uh, … OH!

Carrots

Carrots (Photo credit: chriscook04)

You: Yeah! Get your head in the game.

Me: Sorry, I mis-, …. Nevermind. Yeah, actually I am a little wound up. I finally finished a huge project for work, so that stress is out of my life, for the most part.

You: Such things can always come back to bite you when you least expect them.

Me: Of course. My boss could always say, “Now we need this…”. Mostly I am excited because the local courthouse expanded its hours so that people like me who have to dig through the records won’t get locked out.

You: Locked out? Of a public building?

Me: You don’t really want to know. The details are even more boring than looking through old documents.

You: But you like looking through old documents.

Me: Yeah, but most people don’t. Actual dig your heels in and get your hands dusty research is not something most people enjoy. Suffice it to say, the courthouse has been so busy with researchers like me they had to start limiting the number of people in per day. Things have gotten so bad in recent months they had to increase the number of hours the records room is open. The upshot is that now scheduling a time to get in is a breeze. In fact, my favorite time to do this sort of work is in the evenings when it’s least busy, so I can get even more work done.

You: Is that why you’re so wound up? You can look through old documents for longer?

Me: Sort of, though mostly I’m pleased because this type of schedule leaves my early mornings open. This means most days I’ll be able to get back into writing first thing in the morning.

You: You could have done your writing in the evenings all this time.

Me: This is true. And I should have, but I guess I just feel more creative in the mornings. It’s no excuse mind you, but this is a start.

You: Speaking of starting, why haven’t you?

Me: Uhm, because you told me to blog more. You told me to blog about being wound up. Look, I even added a picture of carrots because supposedly pictures will help drive traffic to the blog. … I’m not sure how though.

You: And you have to do everything I tell you? Everything some “supposedly expert blogger screwball” tells you?

Me: No, but sometimes you give good advice. The blogger screwballs I’m not so sure about.

You: Thank you. My advice now is to get writing. And that goes double for the two people that’ll read this.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Feb 16 2013

Procrastination

You: Hey? Didn’t you say you were going to write a post about procrastination last night?

Me: Huh? … Uhm, yeah, I guess so.

You: Well? Where is it?

Me: Uh, well, I thought it might be more clever if I waited a few days.

You: Seriously? What were you really doing last night?

Me: Well, it kind of started in the morning.

You: As any good procrastinator does. Go on.

Me: I was side tracked, … somehow and found myself on Kickstarter. Do You know what that is?

You: Of course, it’s a website where people can go to help get funding for creative projects. Say an artist, a writer, a painter, whatever, has always wanted to do a personal pet project, but money is an issue. They can start a project on Kickstarter, offer rewards stemming from the project, to people who donate.

Me: Exactly! I decided I should be a patron of the arts. I donated to Gabriel Böhmer’s novel, Beetle Days. After all, maybe I’ll want to do a Kickstarter project one day. I should invest in the system. And if I don’t ever start a project, then I helped out a fellow human being fulfill their dream. The best part, if a project doesn’t meet the minimum funding the creator asks for, then none of the people who promised backing are charged, and alas, that’s the end of the project. So not everyone gets their dreams fulfilled, but at least it’s a way for modern day creative types to find themselves a benefactor. It’s called crowd funding.

You: Okay, not bad, but you said this was in the morning. What did you do last night that stopped you from blogging?

Me: **Sigh** Way to stay on point. You can be pretty sharp. Anyway, in the late afternoon, the project was funded so I went to check the page out. From there, I started looking at other projects.

You: You spent the whole evening looking through Kickstarter projects?

Me: Don’t be silly. I started looking through the board game projects.

You: Board games?

Me: Yeah, I’ve always enjoyed the classic style board games like Checkers and Chess. I remember sitting down as a teen and searching for the shortest possible game in Chinese checkers using ten marbles and no opposing army. My best solution was 32 moves.

You: Why waste the time? There’s always an opposing army.

Me: Why do people sit around and play solitaire? To procrastinate. To waste time.

You: Touche.

Me: By the way, it was only in 2008 that George I. Bell proved that the shortest game possible for solitaire Chinese checkers is 27 moves.

You: Did you just link to an academic paper on Combinatorics?

Me: He also showed that with opposing armies acting cooperatively, rather than opposing each other, the shortest game is only 30 moves. Think about that. There’s 20 marbles in such a game and they each have to move at least once!

You: Hmm, okay I admit that’s kind of interesting as trivia, but you didn’t spend your whole evening reading that paper did you?

Me: No, I came across a message board, a forum, where people discuss the creation of these types of board games.

You: **Groan**

Me: Since I am trained as a mathematician and I almost opted  to get a PhD in Computer Science instead, I got sucked into the discussions about classic games being, for the lack of a better mundane word, computable. By that, I mean algorithms and/or databases of moves that allow a computer to play perfectly. Think back at how lame computers were back in the early and mid 90′s. Even back in 1992, Chinook, a checkers program lost in a series of games to the World Champion, 4 games to 2 (with 33 draws). Chinook’s two wins against Dr. Tinsley, a professor of mathematics (of course), represented Tinsley’s 6th and 7th loss since 1950! Unfortunately, a rematch was never completed since Tinsley passed away in 1994. The creators retired the program when they realized no human could beat it. Finally, in 2007, computers finished the task of “breaking” checkers. Chinook now plays the perfect move every time. Go try it.

You: Why would I want to play a checkers program that plays perfectly? No thanks. Besides, you’re just paraphrasing a NY Times article.

Me: Yeah, but I read it back in 2007. I knew where to go to find it so I could at least get the facts straight.

You: Alright, so you were looking into discussions about people computing board game stuff and you read about this all evening? How sad…

Me: Not exactly. I admit I read for a couple of hours, but then I came across a game that was compared to chess, though it’s really nothing like chess other than it’s played on an 8 by 8 square board.

You: Are you going to go on a long soliloquy about chess now?

Me: Uhm, … No?

You: NO.

Me: Suffice it to say, that there is so much human created chess theory over the past 150 years, the game is getting to be “played out”. It is not uncommon for grandmasters, the best players in the world, to run through essentially memorized sequences with nothing new being played until each player has moved thirty or more times. More than two-thirds of these games end in a draw. It almost seems as though the only new theory that’s being created, though rarely, occurs in games between computers. Chess is fine for the every day player, but the best in the world have kind of dried up the field.

Stop rolling your eyes. That’s the short soliloquy on chess. The game I was fascinated by is called Arimaa. Two things make this game special. The first, solves the chess problem in that the player is allowed to set up his or her own pieces. Thus, creating strategies from a fixed starting position is solved because there are no fixed starting positions. The second, is the simplicity. The rules are even simpler than chess. It can be a bit trying to teach a four or five year old to move the pieces in chess. The abstract interactions between pieces that all behave differently is a bit daunting for most children at that age. In Arimaa, all the pieces move the same, one square up, down, left, or right.

You: So how is Arimaa more complex than chess?

Me: First off, for each turn, a player can make up to four moves. You don’t have to play all four, but you do have to move at least once. There is a hierarchy to the pieces: Elephant, Camel, Horse, Dog, Cat, and Rabbit.

You: Sounds like a kids game.

Me: Quiet you. The truly interesting thing about Arimaa is that a larger animal can push and pull smaller enemy animals. You don’t capture opposing pieces by moving and taking over the square. There are four “traps” on the board. You capture pieces by pushing or pulling your opponents pieces into the traps. Even though the Elephant is the biggest piece and cannot be pushed or pulled, it is the rabbit (akin to the pawn in chess in that you have 8 of them) that is the most important piece. A player wins by getting one of their rabbits to the far side of the board. Of course, you can also win by trapping all 8 of your opponents rabbits, thereby making it impossible for them to win. And finally, you can win by immobilizing all of your opponent’s pieces. If they can’t move, they lose.

You: Doesn’t sound so hard.

Me: It’s not. But like any game, there are some subtleties that go into making it interesting. Like when a trap captures a piece. (The trap only works if there are no other friendly animals nearby.)   And if a smaller animal is next to a larger animal, that piece is frozen, unless it has a friendly animal nearby. (Nearby = up, down, left, or right. Nothing acts diagonally in this game! See, it’s nice and simple.) The freeze rule prevents smaller animals from running from a larger animals without help.

You: So you spent your evening learning to play a kids game? Worse yet, a kids game that teaches them it’s okay for larger animals to bully smaller animals?

Me: Now you’re just twisting things. It’s not a kids game. Several thousand adults regularly play this game online. Considering how hard it is to market classic style board games these days, that’s a pretty impressive number.

You: How do you know it’s not several thousand kids?

Me: Because the game was invented by Omar Syed. He has degrees in Computer Engineering and Electronic Engineering. He designed it specifically so that it would be impossible for current computers to crack the game without new advances in computer science and artificial intelligence. There is nothing elegant about the way computers have solved checkers and currently analyze chess. The program simply looks through millions of moves and counter moves until it determines the best one. The number of moves a computer would have to analyze to determine the best one in Arimaa is beyond current technology’s ability to brute force it’s way through. Thus, new methods of getting computers to analyze information will have to be created. Necessity is the Mother of invention, after all.

You: **Fake snoring sounds** I no longer care why you didn’t post last night. Just end this would you.

Me: Alright, let me just finish by saying that in order to encourage other computer scientists to be interested in this particular problem, Omar Syed has offered a $10,000 prize to anyone who can create a program that can beat three chosen humans best two out of three games against each opponent. The challenge will remain open until 2020. After ten years, the humans are still undefeated. :)

You: **Sigh** …hooray…

Feb 13 2013

Happy New Year!

You:  Belatedly right? The New Year having been over six weeks ago?

Me: Yeah, well,… It’s my first post of the New Year. I’ve been working. My latest project is coming to a close. I’ve spent almost three months on it! Part of my job is as a historical detective. It turns out 108 years ago the local County Clerk made a series of mistakes in the land taxes that led to several mineral interests being combined into one. Resulting in…

You: **Fake snoring sounds**

Me: Okay, so it’s not going to become a best selling thriller or anything, but it has been keeping me busy. It’s not easy going through 100 year old documents to find other people’s long forgotten mistakes.

You: You’ve been so busy you couldn’t even write a ridiculously lame blog post to some imaginary audience?

Me: You know how it goes. You sort of get out of the habit of doing something and it gets hard to pick back up again. Besides, no one reads blogs. Bloggers are a group of writers not readers.

You: Bloggers do read. **Sigh** I notice you didn’t stop eating, bathing, or watching The Daily Show with John Stewart.

Me: That’s different. I have to eat and shower.

You: The Daily Show? Couldn’t you write a post like this and pass on the satire for a day?

Me: Well, yeah, but I like to keep somewhat informed about the news.

You: Why don’t you just watch the News then?

Me: **Groan** It’s always so stilted toward the negative. It gives people the wrong impression about society. Besides, people who watch The Daily Show are better informed than most news watchers.

You: Hmm, okay, I’ll give you that one. I’ll even give you The Colbert Report, but didn’t you just recently watch all fifteen episodes of CBS’s television series Elementary?

Me: Uhm, yeah, over the weekend.

You: How was it?

Me: It was alright. It kept my interest well enough to get to the next one. And I did do some work while watching it, so it’s not like I just sat around doing nothing the entire time.

You: Admit it. You didn’t work during all fifteen episodes.

Me: No, but…

You: So you could have at least done a whimsical post about that show.

Me: I suppose so.

You: Even if the post were to say something like, “Lucy Liu sure is holding up well for her age.”

Me: I wouldn’t blog about an actress like that. Wait a minute! She’s not much older than me.

You: You’d probably say it’s because she’s Asian.

Me: Stop! That’s racist! I wouldn’t say that!

You: You’d probably add something about how you’d like to cuff her with props from the set of Southland.

Me: Southland? I’ve never even seen that show.

You: Then, you’d probably…

Me: STOP TALKING! You’re going to get me into trouble. I don’t say things like that.

You: You promise to blog more?

Me: Yes! I promise!

You: Okay, then I take back all the things I said you’d say.

Me: Thank you. Can I get back to work now?

You: You may.

Oct 31 2012

Happy Halloween

Ack! Has it really been 15 weeks since my last post?

No. I guess it’s only been three-and-a-half months.

As much as I would like to use the excuse that I’ve gotten a new job, training my replacement at the old one while training at the new one, I really can’t justify such a long absence, so I won’t. Worse yet, I’ve gotten almost no writing done during this time frame either. If I had some work to show for the time off, I’d be okay with the aforementioned excuse.

I suppose this begs the question: Why are you writing a blog post now?

I guess it’s to proclaim my annual interest in NaNoWriMo. The last two years my job has overworked me so that I’ve ended up quitting very early on in the month. My new job works me just as hard, but I do get to set my own hours, so I am hopeful that I can at least make it half way into the month before quitting.

Is that an appropriate goal?

Probably not.

The writing project I have in mind is actually for my benefit alone. I want to write the Universe Bible for my Dim Speak series. I have a bunch of notes in a bunch of different files, but nothing formal. I’d like to write up my character sheets and culture sheets for the various worlds. I think getting this stuff down will help with rewrites and future projects. This is also the kind of thing I’d like to post on the web site for future fans should I defy the odds and a few come along.

I’d like to think getting this done will help me start my writing flow so I can begin the second draft of Blood Speak some time in November.

Job willing…

Jul 14 2012

Prediction: Dislikes – No Thanks – Not Interested

The interactivity of the internet has really changed the past couple of years since the “Like” buttons arrived on the scene. Honestly, I don’t use them at all, with the exception of liking other people’s blog posts. Mostly, I do that because it has become inappropriate to leave two-word comments like: “I agree”. And I must say this convention keeps the blogosphere a bit less cluttered, so I’m all for it. Besides, since I have lost so many brain cells to the internet, I have to confess an odd fascination of clicking through the “like” pictures every now and again after I read a blog post. I.e., there’s great time wasting in them thar links.

As I’ve said before, I don’t really see the value in Facebook, and I’ve been too lazy to get into twitter (but soon,… soon).  Because of my anti-FB predilections, I assume this is why I don’t bother with the more general likes that can be found on essentially every page these days. I admit it. I ignore the number of likes. They don’t tell me much, except that if I were a stats nut I could probably come up with formulas that tell me what percent of page views “likes” represented. So, don’t care…

What I’m curious about is how long it will take before the “Dislikes” button comes out. When it comes to regular pages, most sites aren’t going to want to post how many people disliked the page, unless the point of the page is to be controversial and anti-establishment in some way. Then the number would be worn like a badge of honor. Besides, no one likes negative people anyway.

However, I do think the “dislike” button is coming soon to an internet near you.

Why?

For the same reason the like button has become so ubiquitous. It’s knowledge, it’s quantitative, and thus has value. Any extra knowledge that can be garnered from you, businesses will want to know about it. Businesses like Amazon, and…, and… Wait, is there any other place to buy stuff online?

Well, those places too.

I believe “dislikes” are on the horizon. They may be disguised as “No Thanks” or “Not Interested”, but they will essentially yield the same information.

When I was browsing Amazon this morning, I noticed (which happens once in a while) all the “suggested” stuff and “Best Sellers”, and it occurred to me that I wasn’t interested in any of it. This is information Amazon would want to know, and thus, one day they are going to get it. If I could click a “not interested” button for “Fifty Shades of Grey”, they could blast me with something that is actually marketed toward my demographic.

As usual, I may be behind the curve on this one, but that is my prediction for the day*.

.

*This statement does not suggest or imply that I will ever make another prediction. Results of prediction are not guaranteed. If said prediction becomes actualized in any fashion, this result is no guarantee of future results on, as yet, unactualized predictions.

Jul 2 2012

What is a Story? (Part 2)

Several months ago I asked the question, What is a story? After getting some feedback, I came up with the following definition: A story is an event or series of events that changes a noun (a person, place, or thing).

I was satisfied with that definition and myself for a while before it occurred to me, can you write a story where the purpose of the story is to find change in a verb? That is, can the point of the story be for the action to change?

I still find change to be a necessary component for a story, even if the change is to leave one state and then go back to the way it was before. Of course, that’s still change; two changes in fact. But if you have a scene where nothing changes, all you have is an image, not a story.

Anyway, I decided to see if I could write a story where nothing changes but the action. I think I have accomplished that task, thus rendering my previous definition moot, or rather, incomplete.

I have a couple of short stories I plan to put up on Smashwords by next week. Once I get it posted, I’ll let people know where to find it. It’ll be free, of course.

Until then, as a bit of a writing challenge, see if you can come up with a story where the only thing that changes is the action of the story.

Jun 19 2012

Hopes To One Day Write For Food

The title for this post I stole from myself. It is one the vanity subheadings off a writer’s forum I frequent at Absolutewrite.com. It’s funny how such a simple statement about one’s desire to attain one of the basic necessities of life is so insurmountable in the context of the writing profession. Most of my friends are fairly amazed at what an austere lifestyle I manage to lead. And lot of that can be credited with the amazing set of supportive friends that I do have.

The statement implies I would like to write for a living, so not just write for food, but write as if it were my job that pays all the bills. As cheap as I manage to live, it will still take a whole lot for me to earn a living at writing. In this post, I’ll describe my living expenses and show that even I probably will never be able to earn a living off my writing.

First off, I have been given a house to live in.  It’s a long story, but speaking of one of the basic necessities of life: shelter. I have managed to finagle for free at the moment. Really, it is a perk of my job in helping run a hotel, but even if I were to quit that job, my friends would let me stay in the house if I wanted. So we can pretend that I don’t have a mortgage or have to pay rent. I do have to pay the utilities and for the upkeep and such. Basically my friends own the house without a mortgage, they pay the taxes and that’s it. So as long as they don’t see any other expenses, I can live in the house.

My housing expenses consist of:

Gas & Electric: $100

Cable internet (no TV): $50

Water, sewer, garbage, other town expenses paid on same bill: $100

Or about $250 a month, sometimes a bit more, but why quibble considering how cheap it is? At some point, I will have to invest in some sort of upkeep, but for now the house is not falling apart. Though it c0uld use some carpet in the living room and bedroom. At the moment, it’s just a bare wooden floor. I’ve pulled up all the staples and stuff that could stick in my feet, but it’s pretty ugly. Doesn’t bother me, but most people like their houses to feel cozy or whatever. I mention this only to point out that I wasn’t given a palace to live in. It’s a partially remodeled, one story bedroom; maybe 600-700 square feet. And I haven’t bothered to finish remodeling it.

Next, I have a PhD in Math, so I have student loans. Fortunately, I was paid to go to school in a lot of ways with scholarships, teaching classes, and even some grading assignments. I walked away from 11 years worth of school with about $32,000 in loans. That’s actually amazing. Most people under those circumstances have between 200-300 thousand dollars in loans. More than they can ever pay off with the degree they get, but that’s another story and one of the reasons I am no longer in the field of education. That’s a lot of preface to say my student loans are an extraordinarily low $200/month.

The last category is the actual food category and for good measure I’ll throw in clothing. I probably spend about $350 dollars a month on this. Food itself, I’d guess $200-$300. I honestly don’t keep track. Once or twice a year I’ll buy a new pair of shoes/sneakers for work/play. A couple of cheap Chinese Walmart shirts for work per year. Shorts in the summer. So after all is said and done, I’d say I probably average at least $350 a month for food and clothing. If I were to keep track, I wouldn’t be surprised if I were under estimating and it turned out to be $400, but for now, let’s just go with $350.

So there you have it. I live on about $800/month. I would guess this is atypical for most people not living with their parents. I actually need this money to survive, so to earn a “living” I have to account for taxes, and I’m not going to get into the tax return nonsense, I’m just going to point out that I’d need to gross a little more than $1100 to earn $800 cash. We can pretend that future income tax returns go into the upkeep of the house. Sound fair? For simplicity, I’m sticking with that.

Now the question is, how much does one have to sell to be able to live like the glorious king that I live like?

At the moment, I am selling Dim Speak for 99 cents. Is it worth that? I think so. For an unproven author and a book that was not edited by a professional, I think that price is more than fair in terms of the “risk” a reader incurs for taking a chance on such a novel. If someone orders the book at Smashwords, I get about 79 cents per copy, and if someone orders at Amazon, I get about 35 cents per copy.

Thus for me to earn a “living”, I’d have to sell about 3150 copies at Amazon per month. Clearly, that’s ridiculous. Those are George R. R. Martin type numbers. Even if we pretended that I sold a small percentage from Smashwords, I’d have to sell  around 3000 copies to live like a pauper.

Suppose now, I sold the book for $2.99. At this threshold, Amazon gives the author 70% minus a small fee for the kindle transfer, so I would get about $2 per book (plus a few pennies). At this price the Smashwords royalty rate is comparable to Amazon’s, and I’d get about $2.30 per book. Things are looking up. I would only need to sell about 550 copies at Amazon, or let’s pretend about 500 copies between the two distribution methods.

Though it might not sound like a lot, those kinds of sales would put me in the top 5 or 10 in the fantasy section at Amazon pretty much round the clock. A lot of good authors are not selling at these rates. They might be if they have a backlist with five or ten books to draw from, but if they have one book like me, not so much. This is why I haven’t really pushed Dim Speak. I figure why spend a few hundred in advertising, with only one product to sell. I need to have more to offer readers to justify that sort of expense.

Another common price point is $3.99 retail, or about $2.75 from Amazon and about $3.05 from Smashwords to the author. Monthly sales to earn a living is about 400 copies per month.

This price seems a bit high for my current copy of Dim Speak. As I said, my current work is an amateur endeavor. I wouldn’t feel right about charging such a steep price. Then, again, I spent the better part of three years off and on working on the project, so if someone else said they felt they deserved that much for their work, I wouldn’t argue.

I hope this gives people an idea of how difficult it is for an author to actually earn a living from writing alone. In this context, it seems even more daunting. I guess I’d better get to work!