_AllisonMobley

One thing is for sure. The CIA could have killed him, could kill him now, if he truly posed a threat to national security. The fact that they don't indicates they don't feel he is a threat. I'm confident that whatever goal posts you claim Snowden set back, I can explain as ultimatley serving US interests. That's the barometer. Has he hurt US Interests? Seems US interests are doing fine to me. Would things be better if he has revealed nothing? Probably not. His revelations are great distractions.

At a certain point you're saving people so they can starve to death. That's the worst case. Best case: saving them speeds up how soon we run out of non-renewable resources. What's more merciful to mankind as a whole in the long run? I'd say it's keeping the planet in good shape, and I don't see how eradicating malaria can do anything but hurt that goal.

>>lets let some disease carrying mosquitoes into all countries

Why bother when you can count on tourism to do it for you?

http://www.cdc.gov/zika/geo/united-states.html

>>Probably the strain from chronic malaria is worse for an economy than any theoretical strain due to feeding a few million more people.

How about the strain on the planet's non-renewable resources? One would think that the million more people would cause said resources to run out sooner than they otherwise would.

Perhaps we should focus on how to deal with the consequences of eliminating certain natural human population controls before we go through with it.

Those people, if they survived, would have gone on to cause far more ecological damage to the planet than they otherwise did. Until we figure out how to colonize other solar systems, endeavors to spare every human life from such naturally occurring population controls seems foolishly good-hearted.

3)Half a million humans that would have died from Malaria, but did not.

I agree with you.

"Let's get rid of all these natural population controls!"

Sounds like the beginning of a bad post-apocalypse movie.

>It's cheaper in the long run.

Is it? A human that survives to reproduce that would have otherwise died from malaria uses more non-renewable resources than a human that dies from malaria over the course of their lifetime, and continues to do so after their death by way of their progeny.

In terms of how much time we have as a species before running out of non-renewables on earth, killing the mosquitos might cost more than our blue marble can afford.

Perhaps certain natural population controls ought not be tampered with.

What's going on here. Is this an HN meme?

I can't really disagree with you there.

"If you're not signed to a label and have access to their marketing engine then no one will ever hear your music"

Unless you can get popular on youtube.

I aspire to fiction that reads like that.

I would just put it on Youtube and work on putting out a new song every few days. Prolific talent trumps all.

Can somebody explain what I'm watching when I press play?

I like it.

That text is impossible to read for me. It's all light grey on white and patchy.

It would be taxed like regular income made from investments, as it turns out the SEC requires me to register these as asset backed securities (in the works), but I'm not sure my market is the typical investor who already knows those ins and outs, so better believe there will be tons of hand holding in that regard, up to offering a free e-filing service in house, just to trim that barrier to adoption as low as possible.

As for being worried about Hollywood accounting, you won't have to worry, as the company will act as the exclusive publisher and copyright holder of the works belonging to the authors that want to join. It's the only way to insure against authors offering their works on other platforms behind our backs such that investors are defrauded of their cut (aside from costly monitoring and litigation), also, I can't depend on them to get their royalties direct deposited in their accounts, and then send us that portion belonging to their investors to disseminate it, rather, we need to receive said deposits, then distribute as needed. This limits the sort of authors who would be willing to join the platform to a certain sort of upstart writer, one with a small but growing catalog, and a small but passionate reader base, right at the cusp of getting on the radar of the mainstream publishing world due to their ebook sales. At least those are my thoughts at this time. I'd love to just trust authors to do right by their investors, but I can't ask the investors to be so trusting, and one author deciding to betray the company, if I leave the power in their hands, can tank the whole thing. I'm thinking owners transfer copyright of their works thus far and sign a contract to publish exclusively with us all works in the future, and in exchange they get 95% of the asset backed securities created for their books/future ten years of work, at which point they can then offer any amount up for sale like any other anonymous seller. The firm retains the other 5% for itself for its fee, and does the same. After ten years they are free to renew, or leave the firm to publish with others, but the firm retains the copyrights it paid for until they enter the public domain. Anything an author can make outside of royalties resulting from sales of their works either transferred to us or written under contract to us is their business, and in this case royalties refers to both royalties from sales, and royalties from kindle edition normalized pages read, as we're looking to have a special relationship with Amazon moving forward based on talks with them thus far.

I think this article is saying I should build an iron man suit.

Thanks for the link. So the precedent is asset backed securities granting slices of royalties for ten years. Time to talk to someone at the SEC

Will do!

Thanks. Enough money flowing through the system to warrant SEC attention is a problem I'm ready to have. Until then, I'm in sales mode, and stake in myself is the product. Interested enough to bite?

Totally appreciate it, and hey, my first rejection. Eventually I'll get a yes =)

Thanks a bunch, stake in myself is available if interested in becoming investor 0 =)

I won't know unless I try /super

1) I think both can work simultaneously. Either single works or entire catalogs. In the latter case, I'm thinking anything sold as a book, regardless of content. 2) Not yet, but I think for case (ii), I'd try to manage them as collections of case (i) instances to simplify things. 3) We will err on the side of writers. A shareholder can advise, but never dictate. Advice will be displayed to authors filterable by stake held. They can decide how to weigh things from there. We will do our best to make everyone happy on a case by case basis, but "Your advice might be ignored" will be displayed prominently throughout the purchasing process.

I appreciate your interest, and stake in my case (ii) is on a firesale if you would like to become investor zero and help me work out the kinks on the fly =)

You know what, you seem like a nice guy, if it will get this company pizza profitable within 5 hours of it's conception, she's game via paypal at 2% for $175 [email protected]

Cool beans! It occurred to my as I was typing up the OP that the model could easily be extended to any form of artistry, music in particular, which I also do, I'm just a writer first, hence the focus. Plus, I had the chart to show.