Yes, I know SICP is available for free on the net but for me, the right
thing to do is support authors by buying their works. I tried to
purchase both the SICP paper back and the SICP instructors manual but I
got the following reply from the people handling orders for MIT Press:
>On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 12:50:00 -0500, Ron Vieira >
><ron.vieira(at)triliteral.org> wrote:
>Mr. Roberts,
>
>We have received your MIT web order for one copy of "Structure and
>Interpretation of Computer Programs - 2nd Edition (MIT Electrical
>Engineering and Computer Science) (Paperback)", by Abelson, and
>"Instructor's Manual t/a Structure and Interpretation of Computer
>Programs - 2nd Edition (Paperback)", by Sussman.
>
>The paperback version of the Abelson title is not available for sale in
>the US. The only available US version would be the hardcover, which
>retails for $80.
>
>While the Instructor's Manual is available, it can only be sold to
>instructors. This means we would need a request for the book forwarded
>to us on college departmental letterhead before we could ship a copy to
>you.
>
>Please let me know whether you wanted a hardcover copy of the Abelson
>book instead of the paper version, so I can process your order.
>
Is this kind of crap normal?
Since I live in the US, I'm forced to buy the hard back ($80) version
for twice the price of the paper back ($40) and they refuse to sell me
the instructors manual without an easily forged or borrowed piece of
letterhead?
It's enough to make you wonder if the supposed academic establishments
are nothing more than a front for organized crime. ;-)
JCR
Yes, this sort of thing is common. If you look for technical books
online, the best deals are from Asia. I own Asian versions of Sipser's
computational theory textbook and W. Richard Steven's APUE. Both are
smaller and printed on cheaper paper than the US versions, but cost a
hell of a lot less. The publishers are engaging in price
discrimination, which is standard procedure for monopolies, and they
have monopolies on these particular books due to copyright law. They
know that Americans can afford to pay more than most other people, so
they charge us more. It's probably illegal for foreign editions to be
sold in the US, but you can find third-party sellers at Amazon and
elsewhere who do so.
I also have a copy of SICP's instructors manual. There's really no
reason for them not to sell it to students. It's mostly just a bunch
of extra exercises, not answers to exercises in the main book. Not to
mention that you can buy a new copy at Amazon, no questions asked.
J.C. Roberts wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 09:27:54 +0100, in comp.lang.lisp Pascal Bourguignon
> <····@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>
> >But really, what are you complaining about? Just download the on-line
> >version, print it and take two additionnal sheets of paper to cover
> >it: instant paper back!
>
> Both the color laser and b&w laser printers in my garage are fully
> equipped with duplexers, heck, they can even do card stock but printing
> my own free copy is beside the point; even when books are available for
> free on the net, actually purchasing them is a matter of respect. Call
> it contribution, compensation or even gratuity if you must but in the
> end, it's an attempt to be fair and show appreciation for both the
> authors and the university (MIT) employing them.
>
> A silly rule like only selling hard bound editions in the US is easily
> circumvented via amazon and many other book sellers on the web. If
> buying a paper back version at the lowest possible price was actually
> the goal, I would not have bought them directly from MIT Press.
>
> Likewise, a silly rule requiring departmental letterhead in order to
> purchase an instructors manual is also easily circumvented by simply
> asking any right minded professor for a sheet of letterhead or simply
> owning a decent printer and a somewhat creative mind.
>
> It is neither an inability to print the work nor an inability to
> circumvent the rules that troubles me, instead, it is the fact such
> pointless and ineffective rules still exist.
>
> Raising the point in a public manner (such as posting here and cc'ing
> the authors in my emailed reply), has mainly done with the hopes of
> prompting a change in policy.
>
> Silently hacking my way past pointless policy is trivial and is the easy
> way out, but trying to change bad policy takes effort and is a more
> principled approach.
>
> JCR
But it's not necessarily a bad policy. It's a companion textbook to a
course, not a mass readership book. I find the $80 pretty cheap for a
hardcover academic book, and especially this one. Libraries prefer
their books hardcover as they can endure abuse and constant borrowing
by students. I also find it understandable that they won't sell the
instructors book, as that may compromise in-course assessment or tests,
and an institution like MIT can't have the reputation of its assessment
process questioned.
It's true that academic books are expensive, but the market for them is
small, and most students don't even buy them, as they're also provided
in the library and taught in course, and if they do they usually buy
them from previous years students. Even more so for this book that's
available online. Those books usually take years to write, and the
expertise requried to write them take decades to accumulate. It's
certainly is not business to make one rich or one entered into for
profit.
············@gmail.com wrote:
> But it's not necessarily a bad policy. It's a companion textbook to a
> course, not a mass readership book. I find the $80 pretty cheap for a
> hardcover academic book, and especially this one. Libraries prefer
> their books hardcover as they can endure abuse and constant borrowing
> by students. I also find it understandable that they won't sell the
> instructors book, as that may compromise in-course assessment or tests,
> and an institution like MIT can't have the reputation of its assessment
> process questioned.
But $40 MORE for the hardcover is veeery much. And it's mostly the US
system that encourages high prices: in Germany there aren't really
mandatory textbooks chosen by the school, so there is no lobbying by the
textbook vendors. And because schools don't buy huge chunks of
textbooks, but everything resembles more of a free market (i.e.
students, not the school and the lobby choose) books are much cheaper.
In the US my French textbook was $80, and the softcover exercise book
$50, in Germany now it's �17 (but softcover) and �8. Ok, we too have
crappy publishers that sell hardcover books for $100 (Kluwer), and some
of them are written in really crappy English (such as the German author
I'm reading right now).
> It's true that academic books are expensive, but the market for them is
> small, and most students don't even buy them, as they're also provided
> in the library and taught in course, and if they do they usually buy
> them from previous years students. Even more so for this book that's
> available online. Those books usually take years to write, and the
> expertise requried to write them take decades to accumulate. It's
> certainly is not business to make one rich or one entered into for
> profit.
Yes, some books are something you buy for life. They are worth the price.
--
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Ulrich Hobelmann wrote:
> ············@gmail.com wrote:
> > But it's not necessarily a bad policy. It's a companion textbook to a
> > course, not a mass readership book. I find the $80 pretty cheap for a
> > hardcover academic book, and especially this one. Libraries prefer
> > their books hardcover as they can endure abuse and constant borrowing
> > by students. I also find it understandable that they won't sell the
> > instructors book, as that may compromise in-course assessment or tests,
> > and an institution like MIT can't have the reputation of its assessment
> > process questioned.
>
> But $40 MORE for the hardcover is veeery much. And it's mostly the US
> system that encourages high prices: in Germany there aren't really
> mandatory textbooks chosen by the school, so there is no lobbying by the
> textbook vendors. And because schools don't buy huge chunks of
> textbooks, but everything resembles more of a free market (i.e.
> students, not the school and the lobby choose) books are much cheaper.
> In the US my French textbook was $80, and the softcover exercise book
> $50, in Germany now it's 17 (but softcover) and 8. Ok, we too have
> crappy publishers that sell hardcover books for $100 (Kluwer), and some
> of them are written in really crappy English (such as the German author
> I'm reading right now).
>
Yeah, I totally agree that academic books should be cheap, or
preferably even free. But my point was that compared to American
publishers the MIT press price of $80 was not excessive; I remember 3
years ago being told by an American exchange student that a general
chemistry undergraduate textbook was $160 and it was required by the
American university. Nothing special about it and it wasn't a classic
like SICP, and it wasn't available online as SICP is. My point was that
the MIT guys are not bad, they're pretty reasonable. They made the book
available online for free and even in videos, and hence the hardcover
will likely be wanted by libraries that would want to lend them.
In the case of SICP my suggestion if someone wants to read it away from
the computer and doesn't want to print it then a palmtop would be
useful. The open source program Plucker is pretty nice at converting
and displaying books.
> > It's true that academic books are expensive, but the market for them is
> > small, and most students don't even buy them, as they're also provided
> > in the library and taught in course, and if they do they usually buy
> > them from previous years students. Even more so for this book that's
> > available online. Those books usually take years to write, and the
> > expertise requried to write them take decades to accumulate. It's
> > certainly is not business to make one rich or one entered into for
> > profit.
>
> Yes, some books are something you buy for life. They are worth the price.
>
> --
> The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
············@gmail.com writes:
>
> But it's not necessarily a bad policy. It's a companion textbook to a
> course, not a mass readership book. I find the $80 pretty cheap for a
> hardcover academic book, and especially this one.
*boggle*
My CS profs tried to keep the book bill below $50 total.
--
Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
One could spend *all day* customising the title bar. Believe me. I speak
from experience. --Matt Welsh
J.C. Roberts wrote:
> Since I live in the US, I'm forced to buy the hard back ($80) version
> for twice the price of the paper back ($40) and they refuse to sell me
> the instructors manual without an easily forged or borrowed piece of
> letterhead?
Well, I'd even say that $80 are worth it, but of course that's very
steep. On Amazon SICP appears to sell for $55+. Maybe you'll even find
it elsewhere: ebay, or at some university where Scheme-hating undergrads
want to get rid of their copy ;)
> It's enough to make you wonder if the supposed academic establishments
> are nothing more than a front for organized crime. ;-)
The US textbook industry is one.
--
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Ulrich Hobelmann wrote:
> J.C. Roberts wrote:
> > Since I live in the US, I'm forced to buy the hard back ($80) version
> > for twice the price of the paper back ($40) and they refuse to sell me
> > the instructors manual without an easily forged or borrowed piece of
> > letterhead?
>
> Well, I'd even say that $80 are worth it, but of course that's very
> steep. On Amazon SICP appears to sell for $55+. Maybe you'll even find
> it elsewhere: ebay, or at some university where Scheme-hating undergrads
> want to get rid of their copy ;)
>
> > It's enough to make you wonder if the supposed academic establishments
> > are nothing more than a front for organized crime. ;-)
>
> The US textbook industry is one.
My feelings are that there is an bad malfeasance in academic
publishing, whether books or journals, but it's not by the authors or
the universities.
Most academics are not thinking much about this because they usually
only care about their reputation amongst their peers and respect
garnered by publication, they're desperate to get published fast and
frequent thanks to that "publish or perish" slogan, and don't think
about the money, so it's not unusual that they sign on ludicrous
contracts where they hand over their copyright to the publisher for
nothing at all, in fact, that seems the norm in my experience. It was
something I felt very uncomfortable with the first time I came across
this.
And if you thought an £80 MIT textbook costs too much you should see
the pricelist for academic journals - in material the few sheets of
paper containing text and some simple charts must've cost much less
than the glossy junk that gets thrown through your mailslot by
door-to-door marketting kids, and none of the authors who provide the
content get paid a single penny. An academic journal costing over $1000
is not unusual, at all, in fact, it's almost the norm, and given that a
few big publishers own most of the journals and there are so many
academics desperate for publication, that's what you get, i suspect a
mafia of undeserved profit.
This was a big contradiction in the academic moral situation that I
felt very uncomfortable about and I still do. Academic literature
should've been the first thing to be online as the authors do their
meticulous hard work for the good of humanity, and you can't do any
work in academia without reference to many published papers on every
little project you do and costs add up pretty rapidly and especially so
that academics are poorly paid and can ill-afford it and expect no
monetary return, and using the library and requesting paper copies is a
major inconvenience, but you can't access the papers online for free
because a handful of vampires own the copyright to the knowledge of
humanity, they get it for free, and they won't let it happen.
It's ludicrous. We need a GNU or project Guternberg for fresh academic
publishing. Governments should do something about this.
>
> --
> The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
············@gmail.com writes:
> It's ludicrous. We need a GNU or project Guternberg for fresh academic
> publishing. Governments should do something about this.
For at least some academic disciplines, they have: see arXiv.org,
which is the primary resource for much of high energy physics,
condensed matter physics and astrophysics. (For some reason its
takeup seems lower in Computer Science, but I can attest from personal
experience that its importance in physics and certain branches of
applied mathematics is unrivalled.)
Christophe
On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 14:26:45 +0000, Christophe Rhodes <·····@cam.ac.uk>
wrote:
>············@gmail.com writes:
>
>> It's ludicrous. We need a GNU or project Guternberg for fresh academic
>> publishing. Governments should do something about this.
>
>For at least some academic disciplines, they have: see arXiv.org,
>which is the primary resource for much of high energy physics,
>condensed matter physics and astrophysics. (For some reason its
>takeup seems lower in Computer Science, but I can attest from personal
>experience that its importance in physics and certain branches of
>applied mathematics is unrivalled.)
>
>Christophe
Hi Christophe,
If you're involved with High Energy Physics, you may want to know that
the specialized database called SPIRES used for HEP at Stanford (SLAC)
was open sourced by the university just recently. I got to spend a day
with Prof. Dick Guertin (who created both SPIRES and the PL360
programming language) at his home learning about how SPIRES works. It's
a very fascinating approach to information management... -think storage
and indexing of something similar to an S-Exp.
Kind Regards,
JCR
············@gmail.com writes:
> It's ludicrous. We need a GNU or project Guternberg for fresh academic
> publishing. Governments should do something about this.
Maybe something like plos.org?
Kai
Kai Kaminski wrote:
> ············@gmail.com writes:
>
> > It's ludicrous. We need a GNU or project Guternberg for fresh academic
> > publishing. Governments should do something about this.
> Maybe something like plos.org?
>
> Kai
Hi, I wasn't aware of plos.org for this reason, it started in 2003, and
seeing other projects similar to it that now I have used the links from
it, they too are new. It's very good stuff, though perhaps I can see
either a problem or a limitation. I wasn't aware of it because the last
time I dealt with publishing my work was in 2002, in fact, I wasn't
intending to publish that thing I had written when I corresponded about
it, it wasn't driven by ambition but to pass the lonely nights after a
recent hurtful divorce, but it happened to be a world authority on the
topic I corresponded with and then got invited to see, as it was an
emerging topic and immediate peers didn't know much about it and she
was an obvious person to write to, and when she met me, rather than
discussing it as I had expected she just handed me with apparent
excitement a form for publication that required me to transfer
copyright to a major commercial publisher, as the editor of the journal
was the guy in the next office. And considering that what I had sent
her included two and a half pages of uncritical commentary largely in
agreement from yet another world authority from my alma mater whose
name defines the topic as its standard criteria is named after him,
whom I had just corresponded with before I wrote to her, you know, I
sort of 'called home', this was sure to get published. I'm not bragging
here and there's no point to anonymous bragging, I'm just pointing out
that I should've been very flattered and happy at that moment for the
unexpected offer for such prestigious publication but in fact I was
very troubled at how absurd it was for me to transfer copyright to a
private entity that will restrict its dissemination. This was mostly
because I had just been wounded over intellectual property issues; I
had worked on something else in my own time and felt that as an
essential requirement for it was hampered by IP owned by a commercial
entity, I had to apply to patent my idea to be able to bring it to
fruitition and wider benefit, that seemed to have earned me bad
feelings and offended the convictions of some whose help I would've
needed, therefore, like I said, the moral contradiction in the academic
situation, that the majority of them are against restrictive
intellectual property yet they hand over their work to a private entity
that will restrict access to it. I have been away from academia for two
and a half years now hence why I'm revising statistics these days, it
got a little rusty already.
Anyhow, the problem or limitation I see here is the issue of the impact
factor, academics lust after journals with high impact factor. In fact,
this may be the major issue that may prevent an instant and universal
conversion to open access and may sustain restricted access for some
time to come. Academics often define themselves and have much pride and
self-worth invested in the number of publications they have in high
impact factor journals. For example, within little time spent with that
academic I mentioned above I heard her say that she had more than a
handful of publications in that double-digit impact factor widely-read
most-prestigious journal (I won't mention the exact numbers or name,
suffice to say it's one of the perhaps top 5 highly regarded in all of
science, considering that many of the very high impact factor
publications are in narrow fields, hence their too-high impact factor,
but this was a more general publication, hence more influential, it was
second to only being published in Nature considering the field). You
are forced to adopt that thinking and academic way of self-definition
even if you don't want to otherwise you won't be respected or even
employable in academia (it was part of my disillusionment with
academia, I had met those who exemplified the best I could hope to
become yet I didn't envy them for the academic politics they still had
to deal with).
It remains to be seen how open access publications deal with this very
sensitive issue of impact factor. PLOS prides itself on having a high
impact factor, in the teens and that is unusually high, which is good
because they need a high impact factor to attract worthy submissions,
but that would mean they may turn down many publications to keep a high
standard of selectivity, and some of those may end up being owned by
private publishers who may restrict access. On other hand, if PLOS
accepted more, it would perhaps earn a lesser impact factor and hence
be a less attractive. Or do they accept every publishable thing they
get? I don't know. If they do, and yet get a high impact factor,
perhaps they won't be taken seriously because then it may just mean
that they get a higher impact factor because they're more easily
accessed. It should be good that it's easiy accessed had it not been
for issues of pride that unfurtunately form de factor currency of
academia.
Ideally every publishable paper should be published, impact factors be
damned, and that includes those with negative findings (yes, there had
been a huge problem historically in that studies with negative findings
weren't published because they weren't as exciting and hence there is a
major issue of bias and distortion - publication bias. There are ways
to deal with it statistically in metanalyses but it's still a problem).
Do open access publications overcome this publication bias? Do they
strive for high impact factors or publish all publishable stuff they
get? ( which may still be a problem as authors of worthy work may not
take it seriously).
It's a dilemma for the time being. I wonder how it'll go.
I feel a solution would be that there should be legislation to mandate
that any work done in the public sector must be published in open
access publications and not have its copyright transferred to an
undeserving private entity as such had been happening.
Another imprtant element to the solution is that the academic culture
must move away from that journal impact factor measure. There should be
a more individual measure of the piece of work itself and not the
journal it gets published in; it shouldn't matter what journal it gets
published in and the journal shouldn't be punished for publishing
everything publishable it receives.
The impact factor measure is a legacy of restricted-access commercial
publication, it's produced by ISI which is a corporate entity. It will
continue to be produced and hence it will perhaps continue to be a
problem unless there is an alternative solution. I really wish the open
source community could come up with a better solution to measure the
impact of individual papers rather than the journal. It will also need
to be reliable. That would be a lot of data needed for citations
analysis, is it available somewhere in the public domain as I'm sure
ISI won't want to share their data?
Come on, you lipsers, abstract thinkers, masters of programming, how
could this solution be? I think perhaps an issue in transitioning to an
open access model will be not just that a paper is widely cited,
because that may just mean it's widely cited because it is open access,
though that shouldn't in an ideal situation matter but in current
academic politics it does, but also who cited it and in what
publication and what's his history of being cited. In other word, an
open source situation would need to take into account, for the time
being, the political issues that shouldn't make sense but in reality do
and hence for the time being accept that there could be a possibility
that high impact for open access may not be as significant as high
impact for restricted access and compensate for that.
What could be a nice measure of the imprtance of the paper itself, and
by extension of history the individual researcher, rather than the
journal itself. This could perhaps ensure immediate and wide acceptance
of open access, especially if combined with suitable legislation though
not necessarily. I know that this may frighten some researchers and
delight others, but it seems to make better sense. It will also, if
more accurate, contribute to better quality research as I have seen
that much research is done or manipulated for publication as
publication itself was the end, but it won't be an issue if publication
was more universal and there was a more accurate individual measure
than per journal measure. Yes, there was much such rottenness in
academia even in the best of places - an accurate measure of individual
worth of papers would perhaps combat that.
Sorry for the long post.
············@gmail.com wrote:
> And if you thought an �80 MIT textbook costs too much you should see
> the pricelist for academic journals - in material the few sheets of
Hell yes! But that's a reason why I loathe organs such as the ACM and
journal publishers in general. I don't feel that they add much value,
and the even hinder fast, worldwide, distribution by the non-publishing
clauses.
What's better than publishing stuff on the web (cheap, fast, good; pick
all three)? (I see you mentioned this below...)
Like the big media companies, it's time to kill the fossils. We're
internet age now, not stone age.
> It's ludicrous. We need a GNU or project Guternberg for fresh academic
> publishing. Governments should do something about this.
Well, I think researchers should *think* about what they do. Mostly I
guess their greedy-for-esteem institutions encourage membership in the
ACM and publishing in journals, that's why they don't die. Maybe they
should talk their universities into making immediate web-publishing
mandatory (so journals would at least have to accept that). At some
point websites (collecting papers to conferences for instance) could
replace publishers completely.
--
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
J.C. Roberts wrote:
> Yes, I know SICP is available for free on the net but for me, the right
> thing to do is support authors by buying their works. I tried to
> purchase both the SICP paper back and the SICP instructors manual but I
> got the following reply from the people handling orders for MIT Press:
>
> >On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 12:50:00 -0500, Ron Vieira >
> ><ron.vieira(at)triliteral.org> wrote:
> >Mr. Roberts,
> >
> >We have received your MIT web order for one copy of "Structure and
> >Interpretation of Computer Programs - 2nd Edition (MIT Electrical
> >Engineering and Computer Science) (Paperback)", by Abelson, and
> >"Instructor's Manual t/a Structure and Interpretation of Computer
> >Programs - 2nd Edition (Paperback)", by Sussman.
> >
> >The paperback version of the Abelson title is not available for sale in
> >the US. The only available US version would be the hardcover, which
> >retails for $80.
> >
> >While the Instructor's Manual is available, it can only be sold to
> >instructors. This means we would need a request for the book forwarded
> >to us on college departmental letterhead before we could ship a copy to
> >you.
> >
> >Please let me know whether you wanted a hardcover copy of the Abelson
> >book instead of the paper version, so I can process your order.
> >
>
> Is this kind of crap normal?
>
> Since I live in the US, I'm forced to buy the hard back ($80) version
> for twice the price of the paper back ($40) and they refuse to sell me
> the instructors manual without an easily forged or borrowed piece of
> letterhead?
>
> It's enough to make you wonder if the supposed academic establishments
> are nothing more than a front for organized crime. ;-)
>
> JCR
I would stronly recommend the hardcover edition.
Anyhow, why not use Amazon? That is where I got my book and instructor
manual- no hassle. I am sort of surprised that they won't ship you the
instructor manual; it does give more insight into the material but very
few answers (maybe none). If you really want a paperback edition,
there is always amazon.co.uk although I do not know what they charge to
send stuff across the pond.
·········@yahoo.com wrote:
> I would stronly recommend the hardcover edition.
>
I second that recommendation. Paperbacks intended for the lower-cost
non-us market often have paper that's translucent. For instance, the
overseas editions of patterson / hennessey's computer architecture
books are painful to read, because you can see about 3 layers of text
at the same time.
J.C. Roberts wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 09:27:54 +0100, in comp.lang.lisp Pascal Bourguignon
> <····@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>
> >But really, what are you complaining about? Just download the on-line
> >version, print it and take two additionnal sheets of paper to cover
> >it: instant paper back!
>
> Both the color laser and b&w laser printers in my garage are fully
> equipped with duplexers, heck, they can even do card stock but printing
> my own free copy is beside the point; even when books are available for
> free on the net, actually purchasing them is a matter of respect. Call
> it contribution, compensation or even gratuity if you must but in the
> end, it's an attempt to be fair and show appreciation for both the
> authors and the university (MIT) employing them.
>
> A silly rule like only selling hard bound editions in the US is easily
> circumvented via amazon and many other book sellers on the web. If
> buying a paper back version at the lowest possible price was actually
> the goal, I would not have bought them directly from MIT Press.
>
> Likewise, a silly rule requiring departmental letterhead in order to
> purchase an instructors manual is also easily circumvented by simply
> asking any right minded professor for a sheet of letterhead or simply
> owning a decent printer and a somewhat creative mind.
>
> It is neither an inability to print the work nor an inability to
> circumvent the rules that troubles me, instead, it is the fact such
> pointless and ineffective rules still exist.
>
> Raising the point in a public manner (such as posting here and cc'ing
> the authors in my emailed reply), has mainly done with the hopes of
> prompting a change in policy.
>
> Silently hacking my way past pointless policy is trivial and is the easy
> way out, but trying to change bad policy takes effort and is a more
> principled approach.
>
> JCR
Why not send money to their charities and volunteer work, if there
isn't a paypal link on their sites?
"Abelson has a broad interest in information technology and policy, and
developed and teaches the MIT course Ethics and Law on the Electronic
Frontier. He is a founding director of Creative Commons and Public
Knowledge, and he was a founding director of the Free Software
Foundation. Together, these three organizations are devoted to
strengthing our intellectual commons."
http://www.swiss.csail.mit.edu/~hal/bio.html
Incidentally, I got my SICP Instructors Manual just fine in Germany.
IIRC the publisher just sent the thing to the place I ordered it from.
Apparently some people have better things to do with their time than
gatekeep the info I want.
Tayssir
J.C. Roberts wrote:
> ...printing
> my own free copy is beside the point; even when books are available for
> free on the net, actually purchasing them is a matter of respect. Call
> it contribution, compensation or even gratuity if you must but in the
> end, it's an attempt to be fair and show appreciation for both the
> authors and the university (MIT) employing them.
>
> A silly rule like only selling hard bound editions in the US is easily
> circumvented via amazon and many other book sellers on the web. If
> buying a paper back version at the lowest possible price was actually
> the goal, I would not have bought them directly from MIT Press.
>
> Likewise, a silly rule requiring departmental letterhead in order to
> purchase an instructors manual is also easily circumvented by simply
> asking any right minded professor for a sheet of letterhead or simply
> owning a decent printer and a somewhat creative mind.
"Right minded"? Dude, that's fraudulent misrepresentation.
> It is neither an inability to print the work nor an inability to
> circumvent the rules that troubles me, instead, it is the fact such
> pointless and ineffective rules still exist.
I don't think they're pointless or ineffective. Of course some people
will fraudulently obtain instructors' copies and others will obtain grey
market paperbacks. But the majority will get their books through
"proper" channels. Personally, I'm not morally troubled by consumers
importing grey market goods, but I am morally troubled by the fraudulent
misrepresentation.
The publishers' goal obviously isn't to maximize the number of copies
sold, but rather to maximize their long term profit (taking into account
such intangibles as maintaining the house's reputation with authors and
instructors). We can be fairly sure they employ someone whose job is to
set worldwide differential pricing and sales policy to that effect, and
who is losing sleep over the levelling of worldwide prices which the
Internet is effecting. One can argue about whether that person is doing
a good job, but that doesn't seem to be what you're arguing.
> Raising the point in a public manner (such as posting here and cc'ing
> the authors in my emailed reply), has mainly done with the hopes of
> prompting a change in policy.
On what basis? Changes in policy occur when they appear to benefit both
sides -- happier consumers spending more on books, in aggregate. If the
publisher thought this to be true, their policy would be different
already. If they published a softcover in America, casual sales would
have to skyrocket to make up for the loss they'd take on all the uni
students switching to softcover. Do you think casual sales would
increase that much, or are you just asking the publisher to take a loss?
Everybody in any business knows that there's a percentage of potential
customers who won't buy because the price is too high. They get letters.
Today a similar spectacle is taking place in Washington D.C.. Big oil
company executives are being asked why their companies are so darn
profitable this year. Since the obvious answer ("that's capitalism,
baby") is politically unpalatable, they're no doubt phrasing it differently.
> If common sense was actually common, authors would be publishing through
> www.lulu.com or similar and actually be receiving compensation their
> efforts.
I don't think you understand what motivates authors, especially
academics. The stink coming off outfits such as lulu.com is so bad that
I'd hazard many academics would be happier having their book published
by Springer-Verlag in a run of 1,000 for a compensation of $1 than to
have 10,000 printed by Lulu for a return of $50,000.
"I'm published!" implies that my work was judged fitter than 98% of the
crap submitted to the publishing house -- that I survived a rigorous
professional editorial vetting. "Self-published" carries a different
connotation entirely; it's the blogging of the print world.
On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 15:02:29 -0500, Cameron MacKinnon
<··········@clearspot.net> wrote:
>> Likewise, a silly rule requiring departmental letterhead in order to
>> purchase an instructors manual is also easily circumvented by simply
>> asking any right minded professor for a sheet of letterhead or simply
>> owning a decent printer and a somewhat creative mind.
>
>"Right minded"? Dude, that's fraudulent misrepresentation.
>
I guess you're not joking...
Every good professor I have ever known got into academics for two
reasons main; they have a passion for the material and they want to
share that passion with others.
Sure there are burn outs that still operate as cogs in the machine but
that's true of all large organizations.
>> It is neither an inability to print the work nor an inability to
>> circumvent the rules that troubles me, instead, it is the fact such
>> pointless and ineffective rules still exist.
>
>I don't think they're pointless or ineffective. Of course some people
>will fraudulently obtain instructors' copies and others will obtain grey
>market paperbacks. But the majority will get their books through
>"proper" channels. Personally, I'm not morally troubled by consumers
>importing grey market goods, but I am morally troubled by the fraudulent
>misrepresentation.
>
If college students these days are buying their term papers on line,
what makes you think they will do otherwise for their text books?
>> Raising the point in a public manner (such as posting here and cc'ing
>> the authors in my emailed reply), has mainly done with the hopes of
>> prompting a change in policy.
>
>On what basis? Changes in policy occur when they appear to benefit both
>sides -- happier consumers spending more on books, in aggregate. If the
>publisher thought this to be true, their policy would be different
>already.
Really? Then can we assume all the programs you've ever written were
flawless on their first draft? Can we assume they are all presently up
to date? If someone points out a bug or oversight, is that a bad thing?
It is possible their policy generally works, but is also possible they
have overlooked something in its creation. It is also very possible an
old policy, which once worked, has become out of date and is presently
failing.
They are under no obligation to agree with me or change in any way but
still, I found a bug, a situation where their policies fail, and I
addressed it directly rather than trying to side-step their policies
altogether. If there was a better way to address the situation, then I'd
like to know what it is.
Kind Regards,
JCR
J.C. Roberts wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 15:02:29 -0500, Cameron MacKinnon
> <··········@clearspot.net> wrote:
>
> >> Likewise, a silly rule requiring departmental letterhead in order to
> >> purchase an instructors manual is also easily circumvented by simply
> >> asking any right minded professor for a sheet of letterhead or simply
> >> owning a decent printer and a somewhat creative mind.
> >
> >"Right minded"? Dude, that's fraudulent misrepresentation.
> >
>
> I guess you're not joking...
>
> Every good professor I have ever known got into academics for two
> reasons main; they have a passion for the material and they want to
> share that passion with others.
>
> Sure there are burn outs that still operate as cogs in the machine but
> that's true of all large organizations.
>
However you look at it, and with whatever good intention, this, without
a doubt, would be stating the untrue. Every good professor I have ever
known cared too much about their reputation and credibility that they
wouldn't do such a thing, they wouldn't state an untrue. I can't
imagine a good professor taking such a huge risk over such a trivial
matter, it would be a huge embarrassment for his if it's found out and
may put his work and career, past and future, in question. You can't
have a professor who is a liar, who lies to MIT or even anyone.
> >> It is neither an inability to print the work nor an inability to
> >> circumvent the rules that troubles me, instead, it is the fact such
> >> pointless and ineffective rules still exist.
> >
> >I don't think they're pointless or ineffective. Of course some people
> >will fraudulently obtain instructors' copies and others will obtain grey
> >market paperbacks. But the majority will get their books through
> >"proper" channels. Personally, I'm not morally troubled by consumers
> >importing grey market goods, but I am morally troubled by the fraudulent
> >misrepresentation.
> >
>
> If college students these days are buying their term papers on line,
> what makes you think they will do otherwise for their text books?
But the universities shouldn't sell their assessment material. What
would be the point of a university qualification from a place such as
MIT then if anyone can buy their assessment material? An MIT degree
would be a meaningless joke then.
That said, as said in this thread, the instructors' manual is sold on
Amazon, so it can't contain assessment material. I wonder if the thing
you get from them directly is different in content, or if it has
special departmental pricing. In fact, wait, perhaps they asked you for
a departmental letter so they can bill that department instead of
billing you!
I think you need to remember that their products and service are
designed not for the general population, so it wasn't designed for you.
No big deal, you can buy the stuff from Amazon.
On 9 Nov 2005 16:10:51 -0800, ············@gmail.com wrote:
>
>J.C. Roberts wrote:
>>
>> Every good professor I have ever known got into academics for two
>> reasons main; they have a passion for the material and they want to
>> share that passion with others.
>>
>> Sure there are burn outs that still operate as cogs in the machine but
>> that's true of all large organizations.
>>
>
>However you look at it, and with whatever good intention, this, without
>a doubt, would be stating the untrue. Every good professor I have ever
>known cared too much about their reputation and credibility that they
>wouldn't do such a thing, they wouldn't state an untrue. I can't
>imagine a good professor taking such a huge risk over such a trivial
>matter, it would be a huge embarrassment for his if it's found out and
>may put his work and career, past and future, in question. You can't
>have a professor who is a liar, who lies to MIT or even anyone.
>
You are still thinking of using underhanded methods rather than being
clear and direct. The professors I know have guts. The would very
directly tell MIT that the purchase was being made for someone else and
was only being done though them due to stupid MIT policy.
>>
>> If college students these days are buying their term papers on line,
>> what makes you think they will do otherwise for their text books?
>
>But the universities shouldn't sell their assessment material. What
>would be the point of a university qualification from a place such as
>MIT then if anyone can buy their assessment material? An MIT degree
>would be a meaningless joke then.
>
Systems of assessment like grades and degrees are always subjective to
some degree. They always have been and they always will be. Try to
define the term "quality" and you'll see what I mean. More importantly,
university degrees are neither impressive nor do they actually prove
anything.
>That said, as said in this thread, the instructors' manual is sold on
>Amazon, so it can't contain assessment material. I wonder if the thing
>you get from them directly is different in content, or if it has
>special departmental pricing. In fact, wait, perhaps they asked you for
>a departmental letter so they can bill that department instead of
>billing you!
>
>I think you need to remember that their products and service are
>designed not for the general population, so it wasn't designed for you.
>
>No big deal, you can buy the stuff from Amazon.
Again, you're thinking about taking the underhanded route by
circumventing the publishers' policy via purchasing the works through
amazon. There are literally countless underhanded ways to circumvent the
publishers' policies but there are only a few ways to deal with them
directly and fairly.
It is the publishers choice what they want to sell and to whom. It is
their right to set their policies however they choose. I can either
respect them and their policies or I can disrespect them through
circumvention of their policies.
It's really no different than any other type of licensing. For example,
I do not need to personally like the infectious quality of the GNU GPL
license but still, I will always respect and follow it. The copyright
holder has set their policy and the most I will ever do is ask if they
will consider changing their policy or grant an exception.
It is not a matter of whether I can *get* *away* *with* taking GPL'd
code using it in a proprietary closed source application. Considering I
wrote some of commonly used the reverse engineering tools (particularly
the IDB2PAT plugin for the IDA Pro disassembler) used to identify code
theft in compiled binaries, it would be trivial for me to even
circumvent any attempted analysis.
My goal is to have them change their policy or grant an exception.
JCR
J.C. Roberts wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 15:02:29 -0500, Cameron MacKinnon
> <··········@clearspot.net> wrote:
>
>>>Likewise, a silly rule requiring departmental letterhead in order to
>>>purchase an instructors manual is also easily circumvented by simply
>>>asking any right minded professor for a sheet of letterhead or simply
>>>owning a decent printer and a somewhat creative mind.
>>
>>"Right minded"? Dude, that's fraudulent misrepresentation.
>>
>
> I guess you're not joking...
I'm not joking. Misrepresenting yourself to induce a company to sell you
something they otherwise wouldn't -- it is what it is.
> If college students these days are buying their term papers on line,
> what makes you think they will do otherwise for their text books?
I'm under no illusions, nor are textbook publishers. Smart American
college students have been buying texts through amazon.co.uk and similar
sites for several years now. What's your point?
> If someone points out a bug or oversight, is that a bad thing?
You weren't pointing out a bug or an oversight. The publisher's choice
not to sell softcovers in your market, nor to sell instructors' manuals
to students were not mistakes or oversights. You don't like the policy?
The key questions in my last post which you didn't respond to are: How
is your suggestion revenue neutral (at minimum) for the publisher, and
does it maintain the publisher's reputation? Unless I missed something,
you're simply asking for lower prices and easier access to instructors'
materials, while pointing out (as if they don't know) that their market
protection systems aren't foolproof.
On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 17:39:12 -0500, Cameron MacKinnon
<··········@clearspot.net> wrote:
>J.C. Roberts wrote:
>> On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 15:02:29 -0500, Cameron MacKinnon
>> <··········@clearspot.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>Likewise, a silly rule requiring departmental letterhead in order to
>>>>purchase an instructors manual is also easily circumvented by simply
>>>>asking any right minded professor for a sheet of letterhead or simply
>>>>owning a decent printer and a somewhat creative mind.
>>>
>>>"Right minded"? Dude, that's fraudulent misrepresentation.
>>>
>>
>> I guess you're not joking...
>
>I'm not joking. Misrepresenting yourself to induce a company to sell you
>something they otherwise wouldn't -- it is what it is.
>
So going buying grey/black market goods on the cheap is less offensive
than simply asking any of my professor friends to buy a book for me at
the full price? Hmmm... interesting values. Either way, all of methods
of circumvention are beside the point, the point was that it is possible
to do so and the policy is ineffective.
>> If college students these days are buying their term papers on line,
>> what makes you think they will do otherwise for their text books?
>
>I'm under no illusions, nor are textbook publishers. Smart American
>college students have been buying texts through amazon.co.uk and similar
>sites for several years now. What's your point?
>
About the policies, you previously said:
>I don't think they're pointless or ineffective.
Yet, you're now telling me the policies are ineffective, and hence
pointless.
>> If someone points out a bug or oversight, is that a bad thing?
>
>You weren't pointing out a bug or an oversight. The publisher's choice
>not to sell softcovers in your market, nor to sell instructors' manuals
>to students were not mistakes or oversights. You don't like the policy?
>
Since you just finished proving the publishers choices are totally
ineffective, how can their policies be considered anything other than an
oversight or mistake?
>The key questions in my last post which you didn't respond to are: How
>is your suggestion revenue neutral (at minimum) for the publisher, and
>does it maintain the publisher's reputation? Unless I missed something,
>you're simply asking for lower prices and easier access to instructors'
>materials, while pointing out (as if they don't know) that their market
>protection systems aren't foolproof.
>
I'll break it down so I don't miss anything this time.
>How is your suggestion revenue neutral (at minimum) for the publisher
When the publisher is intentionally forbidding sales (i.e. instructors
manuals) and not meeting market demand for a product at a price the
market will bear (soft cover), they are losing out on potential revenue
streams. Whether tapping the missed revenue streams is equal to the
revenue stream from existing policy is pure speculation, especially in
light of the fact the policy is so easily circumvented.
>and does it maintain the publisher's reputation?
Greater circulation of the publishers products through increasing the
volume of works sold will only improve a publishers' reputation but more
importantly, who actually buys books based on the publisher?
The only added value of a publisher's reputation is when it is at the
negotiating table with an author.
>Unless I missed something,
>you're simply asking for lower prices and easier access to instructors'
>materials, while pointing out (as if they don't know) that their market
>protection systems aren't foolproof.
Yes, you missed something. I went to MIT Press web site, ordered the two
books (paper back and instructors manual), and paid for them. Their
system *allowed* me to do this, and then, well after the fact, they
decided to change their mind.
They offered me particular products, of a particular type, at a
particular price; I agreed and I paid them. And before the sale was
finalized, they even knew where I lived, since I had to fill in a
shipping address. In other words the access was already easy and the
price was already lower.
If I did not want to support MIT as well as the authors, I would have
just gone to amazon where the books are cheaper and the transactions do
not suffer from pointless and ineffective policies.
JCR
J.C. Roberts wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 17:39:12 -0500, Cameron MacKinnon
> <··········@clearspot.net> wrote:
>
>>I'm under no illusions, nor are textbook publishers. Smart American
>>college students have been buying texts through amazon.co.uk and similar
>>sites for several years now. What's your point?
>>
>
> About the policies, you previously said:
>
>>I don't think they're pointless or ineffective.
>
> Yet, you're now telling me the policies are ineffective, and hence
> pointless.
Am I really arguing with a binary automaton? If some people drive faster
than the speed limit, are speeding laws ineffective? The point of
regional pricing and product disparities is not to ensure that EVERY
customer pays the publisher's preferred tariff (though that's obviously
the publisher's ideal), but to ensure than MOST of them (i.e. the ones
who still buy their texts at the campus bookstore) do.
> Since you just finished proving the publishers choices are totally
> ineffective, how can their policies be considered anything other than an
> oversight or mistake?
OK, I concede. You obviously know much more about the textbook market
than textbook publishers do.
>>How is your suggestion revenue neutral (at minimum) for the publisher
>
> When the publisher is intentionally forbidding sales (i.e. instructors
> manuals) and not meeting market demand for a product at a price the
> market will bear (soft cover), they are losing out on potential revenue
> streams. Whether tapping the missed revenue streams is equal to the
> revenue stream from existing policy is pure speculation, especially in
> light of the fact the policy is so easily circumvented.
Except for extreme luxury goods, it's a tautology that lowering prices
increases sales, though NOT NECESSARILY PROFITS. Do you really think
you're giving them news when you say there's someone out there that
they've priced out of the market? Honestly, if you put any value on your
time, the time you put into the letters is probably equal to the price
differential.
>>and does it maintain the publisher's reputation?
>
> Greater circulation of the publishers products through increasing the
> volume of works sold will only improve a publishers' reputation but more
> importantly, who actually buys books based on the publisher?
Um, I do. Now you've made me feel like a complete idiot for making silly
prejudgements about the likely relative quality of books based on the
publisher. I've been doing it for decades. Are there any good "... for
Dummies" books you could recommend, because I've been ignoring that
whole section.
> The only added value of a publisher's reputation is when it is at the
> negotiating table with an author.
You really don't think bookstore managers and teachers who specify texts
don't take the publisher's reputation into account? You don't think
profs consider whether instructors' editions are widely available?
Because if you don't, you're telling me that you think that MIT Press
has been acting completely irrationally by not selling them to all
comers. As have other text publishers. Is that your position?
> Yes, you missed something. I went to MIT Press web site, ordered the two
> books (paper back and instructors manual), and paid for them. Their
> system *allowed* me to do this, and then, well after the fact, they
> decided to change their mind.
Hey, I'm defending a publisher's right to differential pricing here, not
incompetent e-commerce sites. Sue 'em if you're that incensed. If they
charged your credit card, there was offer and acceptance.
P.S. Don't forget the t-shirt. Hmm, wonder if they're still available...
http://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/tshirts.html
Cameron MacKinnon wrote:
> J.C. Roberts wrote:
> > On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 17:39:12 -0500, Cameron MacKinnon
> > About the policies, you previously said:
> >
> >>I don't think they're pointless or ineffective.
> >
> > Yet, you're now telling me the policies are ineffective, and hence
> > pointless.
>
> Am I really arguing with a binary automaton?
Don't worry. Given your need to insult him, after coaxing him to
respond to you in detail, he's perhaps the one arguing with the binary
automaton.
Incidentally, SICP's authors have videos of themselves teaching the
course, if it hasn't been mentioned here yet:
http://swiss.csail.mit.edu/classes/6.001/abelson-sussman-lectures/
Tayssir
On 9 Nov 2005 19:22:10 -0800, in comp.lang.lisp "Tayssir John Gabbour"
<···········@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Cameron MacKinnon wrote:
>> J.C. Roberts wrote:
>> > On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 17:39:12 -0500, Cameron MacKinnon
>> > About the policies, you previously said:
>> >
>> >>I don't think they're pointless or ineffective.
>> >
>> > Yet, you're now telling me the policies are ineffective, and hence
>> > pointless.
>>
>> Am I really arguing with a binary automaton?
>
>Don't worry. Given your need to insult him, after coaxing him to
>respond to you in detail, he's perhaps the one arguing with the binary
>automaton.
Hi Tayssir,
Cameron and I are just bringing to light various points while trying to
explore the topic in depth. To do so, we both have to take a side and
present it as well as we can, but there's really nothing personal or
insulting about it.
I have friends, particularly from Eastern cultures, which would find the
entire exchange extremely rude because it has been far to direct
according to their social norms. With other people in other cultures it
is exactly the kind of exchange that would occur between two good
friends over a beer. Cameron and I are in the latter. ;-)
Kind Regards,
JCR
J.C. Roberts wrote:
> On 9 Nov 2005 19:22:10 -0800, in comp.lang.lisp "Tayssir John Gabbour"
> <···········@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Cameron MacKinnon wrote:
> >> J.C. Roberts wrote:
> >> > On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 17:39:12 -0500, Cameron MacKinnon
> >> Am I really arguing with a binary automaton?
> >
> >Don't worry. Given your need to insult him, after coaxing him to
> >respond to you in detail, he's perhaps the one arguing with the binary
> >automaton.
>
> Cameron and I are just bringing to light various points while trying to
> explore the topic in depth. To do so, we both have to take a side and
> present it as well as we can, but there's really nothing personal or
> insulting about it.
>
> I have friends, particularly from Eastern cultures, which would find the
> entire exchange extremely rude because it has been far to direct
> according to their social norms. With other people in other cultures it
> is exactly the kind of exchange that would occur between two good
> friends over a beer. Cameron and I are in the latter. ;-)
No, I fully understand; you see, I was on a debate team. ;) Where you
speak rapidly and cite boxes of evidence; I used to do this for days.
I just think that odd little barbs and debate tactics are held to a
higher standard when they're offtopic to Lisp. So you can have people
make grandiose claims and antagonistically misread things when we're on
Lisp. ("It's slow, Lispers use EVAL, they're elitist"...) Because it
meets certain assumptions:
* If you don't have the time commitment to respond to someone's desire
to play debate, at least someone else likely has the expertise to.
* There's a body of generally-accepted literature to cite. ("EVAL's a
bad idea here, so don't criticize Lisp for your unskilled coding.")
However when we shift to social "sciences" like economics, where there
is political pressure to misquote its most cited figures (like Adam
Smith), it's a minefield which strays far beyond technical topics.
And I'm certainly not perfect in this regard either, and regret any
transgressions I've probably made. But this forum used to be a real
flamewar arena, and it's tiring to see the same simple tricks pop up
again.
On 10 Nov 2005 06:43:58 -0800, "Tayssir John Gabbour"
<···········@yahoo.com> wrote:
>But this forum used to be a real
>flamewar arena, and it's tiring to see the same simple tricks pop up
>again.
Well, as someone with experience in debate, particularly rhetoric and
logic, you'll note that Cameron called me on an interesting point; I
intentionally drew a conclusion from contradictory premesis. The result
is a logical argument which is valid but is unsound and hence, a classic
fallacy. It's a damn good rhetorical device most of the time but still,
it's bad logic and Cam exploited its weakness.
Anyhow, I got a good laugh from the "binary automaton" phrase. It was
definitely well crafted.
Kind Regards,
JCR
J. C. Roberts wrote:
> On 10 Nov 2005 06:43:58 -0800, "Tayssir John Gabbour"
> <···········@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >But this forum used to be a real
> >flamewar arena, and it's tiring to see the same simple tricks pop up
> >again.
>
> Well, as someone with experience in debate, particularly rhetoric and
> logic, you'll note that Cameron called me on an interesting point; I
> intentionally drew a conclusion from contradictory premesis. The result
> is a logical argument which is valid but is unsound and hence, a classic
> fallacy. It's a damn good rhetorical device most of the time but still,
> it's bad logic and Cam exploited its weakness.
>
> Anyhow, I got a good laugh from the "binary automaton" phrase. It was
> definitely well crafted.
I'm glad you enjoy it and have no intention of raining on your parade.
;) I hope you two go on and be merry, with whatever audience that
enjoys observing your debate. (I personally go to forums designed for
discussions like this, and it's cool.)
But to clarify what I was saying, and then I'll probably bow out, some
technical people engage in "nitpicking". If you say something that's
more or less correct, but maybe didn't take the time to formulate it to
the nth degree, a technical-minded debater will probably nitpick it to
death. Scoring points, in his mind.
"Hi! Do you know what time it is?"
"Yes."
The sign of this is when someone leans more heavily on logical analysis
than external citation. A philosophical game.
The Rice Blackboard Debating Society apparently formalized debate to do
this in an enjoyable way:
http://www.cs.rice.edu/~eallen/debate/
Now, sometimes I briefly cite things on this forum... formulating it
quickly, because my source is more precise, and I'm happy to clarify as
time permits. However, one participant in this discussion occasionally
takes that as a sign to pounce with his debate tactics, which happen to
be the same ones trolls use to elicit entertainment:
http://linux.nullcode.org/troll.txt
I could really nitpick statements like, "Except for extreme luxury
goods, it's a tautology that lowering prices increases sales," but then
what's the point? This isn't an econ forum, and I know what the guy
roughly means to say.
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/nitpick.htm
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 04:22:10 +0100, Tayssir John Gabbour
<···········@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Incidentally, SICP's authors have videos of themselves teaching the
> course, if it hasn't been mentioned here yet:
> http://swiss.csail.mit.edu/classes/6.001/abelson-sussman-lectures/
>
>
> Tayssir
>
Yes. I followed them earlier this year.
You need a fast internet connection though!
On my 1 Mb/s connection it took about 4 hrs to download
tomorrows lecture.
(two parts pr. lecture .5 to 2 Gb each, 12 lextures total)
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
John Thingstad wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 04:22:10 +0100, Tayssir John Gabbour
> <···········@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Incidentally, SICP's authors have videos of themselves teaching the
> > course, if it hasn't been mentioned here yet:
> > http://swiss.csail.mit.edu/classes/6.001/abelson-sussman-lectures/
>
> Yes. I followed them earlier this year.
> You need a fast internet connection though!
> On my 1 Mb/s connection it took about 4 hrs to download
> tomorrows lecture.
> (two parts pr. lecture .5 to 2 Gb each, 12 lextures total)
These appear far tinier, apparently encoded in a video format playable
on a video iPod (.mp4):
http://feeds.feedburner.com/SICP
YMMV.
Tayssir
On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 20:01:06 -0500, Cameron MacKinnon
<··········@clearspot.net> wrote:
>J.C. Roberts wrote:
>> On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 17:39:12 -0500, Cameron MacKinnon
>> <··········@clearspot.net> wrote:
>>
>>>I'm under no illusions, nor are textbook publishers. Smart American
>>>college students have been buying texts through amazon.co.uk and similar
>>>sites for several years now. What's your point?
>>>
>>
>> About the policies, you previously said:
>>
>>>I don't think they're pointless or ineffective.
>>
>> Yet, you're now telling me the policies are ineffective, and hence
>> pointless.
>
>Am I really arguing with a binary automaton? If some people drive faster
>than the speed limit, are speeding laws ineffective?
By definition, yes, particularly in light that the overwhelming majority
of citations are speeding tickets.
But I think the point you're trying to make is the speeding laws are, to
some degree, partially effective rather than perfectly effective. In
that way, you are correct.
>The point of
>regional pricing and product disparities is not to ensure that EVERY
>customer pays the publisher's preferred tariff (though that's obviously
>the publisher's ideal), but to ensure than MOST of them (i.e. the ones
>who still buy their texts at the campus bookstore) do.
>
When was the last time you got in your car and kept it at or under the
speed limit the entire way? -But yes, MOST people drive somewhere near
the limit.
Now enter a new way to get to work, namely flying. The speed limit for
flying is twice that of driving, so you get to work in half the time.
Since these days everyone has both a plane and a car, how many people
will opt for the reduced commute time?
Publishers have the right to artificially increase the commute times but
this will only push the majority of the market into another way of
commuting.
>> Since you just finished proving the publishers choices are totally
>> ineffective, how can their policies be considered anything other than an
>> oversight or mistake?
>
>OK, I concede. You obviously know much more about the textbook market
>than textbook publishers do.
>
Maybe. All I really know is what it is like to spend thousands of
dollars on books each year as a consumer.
>>>How is your suggestion revenue neutral (at minimum) for the publisher
>>
>> When the publisher is intentionally forbidding sales (i.e. instructors
>> manuals) and not meeting market demand for a product at a price the
>> market will bear (soft cover), they are losing out on potential revenue
>> streams. Whether tapping the missed revenue streams is equal to the
>> revenue stream from existing policy is pure speculation, especially in
>> light of the fact the policy is so easily circumvented.
>
>Except for extreme luxury goods, it's a tautology that lowering prices
>increases sales, though NOT NECESSARILY PROFITS. Do you really think
>you're giving them news when you say there's someone out there that
>they've priced out of the market? Honestly, if you put any value on your
>time, the time you put into the letters is probably equal to the price
>differential.
>
It is neither a matter of my time nor it's value; I want the publishers
to both survive and profit but the markets are changing and publishers
need to be aware of the changes.
>>>and does it maintain the publisher's reputation?
>>
>> Greater circulation of the publishers products through increasing the
>> volume of works sold will only improve a publishers' reputation but more
>> importantly, who actually buys books based on the publisher?
>
>Um, I do. Now you've made me feel like a complete idiot for making silly
>prejudgements about the likely relative quality of books based on the
>publisher. I've been doing it for decades.
For technical tomes, my approach is different; bulk. Just to get started
learning common lisp, I've grabbed six books so far:
1.) ANSI Common Lisp -Paul Graham
2.) On Lisp -Paul Graham
3.) Practical Common Lisp -Peter Seibel
4.) Successful Lisp -David Lamkins
5.) Common LISP: the Language -Guy Steel
6.) SICP -Abelson and Sussman
I'm going to hammer through all of them. Neither the author nor the
publisher makes much difference since I'm of the opinion that no single
book is going to get all of it, or get all of it right. The thing that
matters to me is the topic and to cover it reasonably well, I need to
approach it from multiple directions. There will obviously be some
redundancy but the redundancy will just reinforce the most commonly
considered areas... -not a lot different than practice.
>Are there any good "... for Dummies" books you could recommend, because
>I've been ignoring that whole section.
>
Why? The Dummies books sell very well for a reason. They are excellent
for anyone starting out with a passing interest in a topic. They are not
meant for someone with intense interest and wants to study in both depth
and detail. I'm sure there may be a topic or two that you've always
wondered about but never really had the inclination to spend a lot of
time trying to understand.
As for intentionally ignoring books, well, I've done that as well. For
the longest time I refused to read any of the Harry Potter series. When
the fifth book came out, I reconsidered my position. It's not that there
is anything particularly moving about the Harry Potter stories, instead,
I decided to read them because of their commonality. Those stories have
been so widely read, they have become part of culture in the sense there
are now many subtle references to them.
# nslookup hedwig.google.com
>> The only added value of a publisher's reputation is when it is at the
>> negotiating table with an author.
>
>You really don't think bookstore managers and teachers who specify texts
>don't take the publisher's reputation into account? You don't think
>profs consider whether instructors' editions are widely available?
>Because if you don't, you're telling me that you think that MIT Press
>has been acting completely irrationally by not selling them to all
>comers. As have other text publishers. Is that your position?
>
Yes, I think MIT Press is acting irrationally due to outdated and
ineffective policies.
>> Yes, you missed something. I went to MIT Press web site, ordered the two
>> books (paper back and instructors manual), and paid for them. Their
>> system *allowed* me to do this, and then, well after the fact, they
>> decided to change their mind.
>
>Hey, I'm defending a publisher's right to differential pricing here, not
>incompetent e-commerce sites. Sue 'em if you're that incensed. If they
>charged your credit card, there was offer and acceptance.
>
I will also defend the publishers' right to differential pricing. Of
course they should have the right to price works as they wish but I am
under no obligation to agree with their outdated and ineffective
business models. Since I want the publishers to survive, bringing it to
their attention is worth the effort.
>P.S. Don't forget the t-shirt. Hmm, wonder if they're still available...
>http://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/tshirts.html
>
Those 50% cotton 50% polyester T-Shirts are actually only available in
100% pure cotton at double the price here in the US. ;-)
JCR
J.C. Roberts wrote:
> When the publisher is intentionally forbidding sales (i.e. instructors
> manuals) and not meeting market demand for a product at a price the
> market will bear (soft cover), they are losing out on potential revenue
> streams. Whether tapping the missed revenue streams is equal to the
> revenue stream from existing policy is pure speculation, especially in
> light of the fact the policy is so easily circumvented.
And taking into account that many books (language courses) have the
solutions to the exercises right there. I consider that a service,
actually, because it helps me learn and correct my mistakes immediately..
I don't think it really helps students cheat. How would they ever pass
an exam (without bringing the book)?
--
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Cameron MacKinnon wrote:
> I don't think you understand what motivates authors, especially
> academics. The stink coming off outfits such as lulu.com is so bad that
> I'd hazard many academics would be happier having their book published
> by Springer-Verlag in a run of 1,000 for a compensation of $1 than to
> have 10,000 printed by Lulu for a return of $50,000.
Maybe if they swim in money. I'd rather get something published and
earn money, so I can live without a day job and publish more good books.
> "I'm published!" implies that my work was judged fitter than 98% of the
> crap submitted to the publishing house -- that I survived a rigorous
> professional editorial vetting. "Self-published" carries a different
> connotation entirely; it's the blogging of the print world.
Maybe, but there's still tons of crap in book form (o really). Sure,
MIT press, Springer and AW are pretty good at filtering it out, but I
have a book on my desk that's supposed to cost �100, is published by
Kluwer, some Dutch academic publisher, and the book reeks of Germanisms.
My posts probably do, too, but for �100 I'd expect a publisher to look
over the book and correct the most blatant wrongly translated words,
commata, and bad style.
Everybody has their own reputation. To me there's nothing wrong with
someone maintaining their own reputation and webspace, and selling books
printed by lulu or whoever.
You don't *need* a publisher to be held in esteem for writing good
books, making good music etc.
--
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Ulrich Hobelmann wrote:
> Cameron MacKinnon wrote:
> > I don't think you understand what motivates authors, especially
> > academics. The stink coming off outfits such as lulu.com is so bad that
> > I'd hazard many academics would be happier having their book published
> > by Springer-Verlag in a run of 1,000 for a compensation of $1 than to
> > have 10,000 printed by Lulu for a return of $50,000.
>
> Maybe if they swim in money. I'd rather get something published and
> earn money, so I can live without a day job and publish more good books.
>
Well they wouldn't be working in Academia had money been their motive.
Ulrich Hobelmann <···········@web.de> writes:
>
> Maybe, but there's still tons of crap in book form (o really). Sure,
> MIT press, Springer and AW are pretty good at filtering it out, but I
> have a book on my desk that's supposed to cost 100, is published
> by Kluwer, some Dutch academic publisher, and the book reeks of
> Germanisms. My posts probably do, too, but for 100 I'd expect a
> publisher to look over the book and correct the most blatant wrongly
> translated words, commata, and bad style.
No, actually your (written) English is excellent--indistinguishable from
a native's. And as a Virginia boy, I think I can be considered an
expert:-)
A week from Saturday I get to learn if my German is even passable--my
kid brother & I are headed to Berlin. Somehow I rather fear that my
pidgin-Deutsch will be insufficient...
--
Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
Fairy tales do not tell children the dragons exist. Children already
know dragons exist. Fairy tales tell children the dragons can be
killed. --G.K. Chesterton