Joined: Dec. 2007
|Quote (Cubist @ Mar. 31 2011,17:31)|
|Quote (CeilingCat @ Mar. 31 2011,06:37)|
|John A. Davison is alive and well and spamming ISCID, which is also alive, but isn't doing nearly as well. In fact, JAD seems to be the only one who has posted there since 2010. |
He's trying to sell his book. The title of the book is "Unpublished Evolution Papers of John A. Davison".
Except that now they're published, so the title is no longer accurate.
I love it so!
P.S. Lulu is a "book on demand" vanity publisher. Anybody with a few hundred bucks in his pocket can become a published author at Lulu. If you want to buy a copy, they print one for you on the spot and mail it to you. They've actually published some books worth buying.
Beggin' yer pardon, but Lulu doesn't charge any money up front. As you say, it's a 'print on demand' outfit; this means they don't actually print up a copy of a book until someone orders a copy. How Lulu makes its money is not by the author paying them up front, but, rather, by taking a nontrivial percentage of the cover price of any copies which actually do sell. So yes, Lulu will publish anything -- they just happen to have a business model that's closer to traditional publishing (i.e., all money is extracted from sales of books) than to vanity publishing (i.e., the author pays all costs).
My mistake. I thought they charged a setup fee to get your data on their hard drive, but evidently not.
I'm not knocking Hulu, it's a good place for books that are never going to be commercial (which would include everything JAD has ever written).
I bought three books from Hulu by a guy who got the reprint rights to the old "Carl and Jerry" stories published in Popular Electronics back in the fifties and sixties. Instant nostalgia! Took me back to my high school days, which made me think of Rhonda Whittinger which made me think of the day her skirt spontaneously self-disassembled which for some truly odd reason made me think of Louis which made me cry because I don't want to be Welsh!
...after reviewing the arguments, Iâ€™m inclined to believe that the critics of ENCODEâ€™s bold claim were mostly right, and that the proportion of our genome which is functional is probably between 10 and 20%. --Vincent Torley, uncommondescent.com 1/1/2016