most of the time they dont. clearly you didnt see the article i posted. these professional writerrs, working for the new york times, are all writing books independent of their jobs. "Writers write them for reasons that usually have a little to do with money" in most professions yes. waiters dont go home and wait tables for funsies. ditch diggers dont go home and dig free ditches for free. but writers, en masse, do in fact go home and write and write and write, constantly. they never stop.
AMATEURS. YOUR ATTENTION SPAN IS VERY SHORT. I WILL SHOUT UNTIL YOU WISE UP. BECAUSE THEY HAVE JOBS . . . :insane: IRRELEVANT TO THE FACT THAT THE SUCCESSFUL PROFESSIONAL AUTHORS ALL SELL THEIR WORK. ALWAYS HAVE. ALWAYS WILL. THE FACT THAT AMATEURS CAN WRITE DOES NOT MAKE THEM AUTHORS ANYMORE THAT THE FACT THAT YOU CAN OPERATE A WRENCH DOES NOT MAKE YOU A MECHANIC. IT DOES NOT MATTER THAT YOU WILL OPERATE A WRENCH WITHOUT PAY. NOBODY CARES. NOBODY WILL PAY YOU TO FIX THEIR CAR EITHER.
you are simply defining professionals not by their skill, but by whether or not they are paid. they would still be skilled and write if they were not paid. you would enjoy their books just as much if you got them for free.
So does the entire world, Bubba. Professional -noun 1. a person who participates for gain or livelihood in an activity or field of endeavor often engaged in by amateurs. 2. those having a particular profession as a permanent career. -adj engaged in by persons receiving financial return. Amateur -noun 1. a person who engages in a study, sport, or other activity for pleasure rather than for financial benefit or professional reasons. 2. those who have never competed for payment or for a monetary prize. It's got nothing to do with skill. It has to do with working for a living. Professional writers do that. Amateurs do not. There is every skill level in both categories. I might enjoy amateur books, but probably not. If they were any good, they could get them published and earn money on them. This is how it has always worked. Nothing has changed.
Saw that. Just curious from what you have heard/seen so far..... what CAN'T the Kindle Fire do that the iPad can? Is there really a justified $300 less difference in those 2 devices? That's a great price-point for Amazon.
kindle fire is cheap because it is tied to amazon services and they anticipate making lots of money off people buying prime streaming and books. the drawback is no apple/android app store. i bought a 99$ hp touchpad during the fire sale. i like it.
The Kindle doesn't offer a cellular connection, working only with wi-fi. It also doesn't have a camera or microphone. And it doesn't have the thousands of available apps. Bottom line, a iPad can emulate a Kindle or a Nook, but they can't emulate a iPad.
