"Sealed" implies the record is reasonably inaccessible to the general public, but still easily accessible to law enforcement. When you are arrested, law enforcement, and especially prosecutors, will be very interested in what you have been convicted before previously, especially if your state has a "three strikes" law (where you can end up with life in prison for your third felony conviction, regardless of the seriousness of the felonies) or something similar.
Trump is hardly a Tea Party favorite. If you're thinking Trump supporters and Tea Partiers are one in the same, you misunderstand the goals of one, if not both, groups.
I've been a T-Mobile customer for about two years, and they've been doing it for at least that long as far as I can recall. It hasn't bothered me that much since it's not very often that I mistype a URL while using my phone without wi-fi, so I've only seen that stupid search page a handful of times, but yeah… they do it.
Using JS to present data moves the work of generating the display of that data from the build process, as with "pure" static site generation, or from server-side code, as with a standard CMS, to the client, where it is most likely to fail in unpredictable ways due to variances in browser JS or CSS engines, network performance, browser extensions, etc, etc.
But given that the concept of progressive enhancement seems to have been completely lost on the latest generation of web developers, who cares, right?
Well, the key here is that any non-JSON data you pull from a URL should be static. That means it can be cached, and the client should only be pulling a small amount of data that varies based on their account.
I wouldn't write an interactive web application this way, but for sites that are mostly content the approach works fine. You still have to test on multiple browsers, and you still have to write code that handles the differences in browsers/engines/etc. But your servers are doing less work, and the content reaches the customer faster. It's still up to you to optimize your JS (though I guarantee most tracking cookies are taxing JS far more than rendering a few divs will).
Does it? Is it really slower for your customers to download a server-generated page than for them to download a static page, (probably) download a JavaScript file embedded in the page, execute the JavaScript, then download and process server-generated JSON?
Considering they're likely also downloading JavaScript and executing it when using the server-generated page, yes. Let's not pretend it's possible to do everything on the server side. Just now instead of compiling the page in real time when it's accessed, we compile large parts of it long before the user requests it.
A standard self-published e-book model, which sort of combines many of the options you mention above, is along these lines.
First, put the e-book up on Gumroad and/or Amazon or the like, or set up an e-commerce site to sell it yourself (better margins; more work). Also set up a mailing list through MailChimp or the like.
Set up a site about the book, with a blog. Publish a few articles in the blog on the same content that your book is about (but not articles directly from the book itself; you don't want people who buy the book to feel ripped off). In the site's sidebar and at the end of each article, prompt people for their email address to receive a sample chapter of the book and sign up for a mailing list to receive new articles about the topic directly to their inbox for free. Now, as you continue to add new blog posts to the site - twice every month or so - publish them to the mailing list as well.
Finally, end each blog post/mailing list article with a call to action to buy the book. The article will establish your expertise on the subject, and as they're added to your site, will build up your SEO and start driving traffic from search terms related to your topic.
Eventually, if people are interested in your book, write another one. Hey, now you've got a voluntary mailing list full of people interested in your topic to advertise your new book to - it should have much better sales initially than your first one.
Wash, rinse, repeat. I haven't actually done this myself, but it seems to work for a lot of people.
Thanks for breaking down each step in so much detail. Is there any value in going the "give the whole thing away for free" route? I have seen a few folks do this (http://gameprogrammingpatterns.com/)
There can certainly be value if you think that teaching others what you know is more valuable to you than making a (larger) profit. Altruism is a thing.
Another way to give it away would be to play a long game of sorts by requiring people to sign up to the mailing list to get the free book. That way, you're still building up a list of interested people to spa--… market to when you write your follow-up books (and sell those for a profit).
One of my favorite articles like this, from 2 years ago:
> This morning Apple (NASDAQ: AAPL) announced a record-breaking weekend for sales of its new iPhone 5S and 5C. In the first 72 hours more than 9 million phones were sold in 11 countries around the world.
> To me though, all this over-the-top fanfare and even the record-breaking first weekend of sales could actually be cause for concern.
> Let's face it this new iPhone is just an upgrade, a refresh, dare I say a sequel.
Yes. that's exactly what it is. And it sells like crazy.
My thoughts exactly. If someone were to phonily offer Hawking a cartoonish sack of money to write a report about black holes, should we be shocked when he shows interest in the offer?
If you claim to be a scientist, you leave your personal beliefs at the lab door and abide to the experimental results. If you cannot do that, you pick a different subject of study and let some other unbiased scientist pick on the thorny (for you) subject.
How would you feel if Hawkings were a Christian, and he would take money from the Pope and then wrote a report on how he saw Jesus in the black hole?
> How would you feel if Hawkings were a Christian, and he would take money from the Pope and then wrote a report on how he saw Jesus in the black hole?
The same way I feel about all such claims: if they can't be independently reproduced, they're garbage. The more bizarre the claim, the easier it should be to disprove it. Authors who publish outlandish claims that cannot be substantiated by others will be first disgraced and then, worse, ignored.
Hawking and the pope aren't relevant to your example. All that matters is that someone claims he saw Jesus in a black hole. It's not even clear that such a thing is a falsifiable claim, and if it weren't, it wouldn't be accepted for publication anyway. But even if it took the form of one, it would be immediately disproved and that would be the end of it. It's the claim that's important, not who made it or who paid him to do so.
Let me clarify, I did not ask how do you feel about reports of metaphysical/paranormal events.
My question was, how would you feel about:
1. A scientist with strong political/religious views.
2. That works in a scientific problem that have strong implicationis for his strong views.
3. Then he does accept funding from established political players that allign with his strong views. He fails to report his funding sources.
4. And finally - surprise, surprise - goes on to write articles that "reach" to the "conclusion" that validate his political/religious views.
The reason is that the GP claimed that there is nothing morally wrong with said scientist because of #2. (the scientist sincerily believes in those biased views). And that the former example has no difference with:
a) Scientist picks one field of study.
b) Scientist accepts funding from a third party that is interested in such field of study.
c) Scientist produces results in his field of study.
I see your point, but I guess I don't feel that strongly about it. We all have biases, and the way to ensure good results is to document them thoroughly and make sure they're reproduced. After all, some of the people with biases are right. Another good way to make this better has been suggested many times, perhaps most famously by Feynman: require that everyone publish their results, even if they're negative or inconclusive. That way you can't just publish a steady stream of things you agree with, and everyone gets to learn whatever you learned (or ought to have learned) from whatever experiments you did.
There's also your point in:
> He fails to report his funding sources.
Which to me is inherently dishonest, especially in a world where you can decide not to publish your results.
So I guess I still don't think what you're suggesting is ok, but my solution is different and more complex than I think you're suggesting. Mainly because I don't think unanimity is healthy and I don't think lack of bias is achievable or even necessarily desirable. But I still agree that what you've suggested is a problem given how science is done right now.
There is no such thing as an unbiased scientist. They are human, after all. Whenever you read about scientists reporting on X or discovering Y, you should absolutely consider their motives, especially in contentious subjects such as this one.
And your analogy is only comparable if Hawking already had a history of reporting about seeing Jesus in black holes.
