It depends on the need, really. If you write for print, directly or indirectly, something like LyX should be better, as it enforces certain standards that most Word users break unknowingly or knowingly. Typesetting a Word document takes a lot of work, due to the fact that it's almost always littered with errors like random double spaces, improper sectioning and paragraphing, inconsistent use of styles, etc. Word only looks easy to use, but most users use it incorrectly, and until 2007, it even encouraged improper usage. OpenOffice is actually better in that respect, as it at least makes styles obvious.
Of course, it's a Word world, so Word and OpenOffice are often the only practical options. Technically, from a writer/editor's standpoint, there's nothing particularly good to it. I kind of like Word's commenting feature, or at least prefer it to OpenOffice's.
If you write for the web, and text editor will do. I prefer Emacs for text documents and Vim for configuration files, which makes me a double heretic.
No. Print media, where you need PDFs and not necessarily Word, is alive and well. The Kindle is evil, remember? Printing documents for use at school or at the office is, however, replaced by email.
No, the AC you replied to is correct. You read stories for suspense, which really is an invention of mass consumerism. In contrast, all Shakespeare's plays, and all the great Greek tragedies, were based on stories and plots that were already well circulated, and known to the audience.
"Vindicated"? Everything he says from "Also..." on is bullshit. The keyboard outputs a keycode, the OS decides what to do with it, like turning it into a unicode character. A keyboard doesn't know what character it will put on the screen.
I'm not sure what the point of your comment is, since the only "actual fact" in it is that I flamed a guy: so what. And you have the nerve to mention the phrase "actual facts", just before veering into the most retarded straman attack I've seen this century. It makes you come across as a total moron, not as someone "knowing multiple operating systems, how kernels inter-operate with I/O devices and more". Which you most likely don't.
I've tried a stripped-down pirate version (called XP JACKed Edition, IIRC) that would boot and run in a virtual machine limited to 20 MB RAM. It worked fairly well, I even used it to play games like Oblivion for a while (not in a VM, though). XP can be remarkably lightweight.
There's nothing "interesting" about a report from the CEI. You may as well ask their sponsors, like Texaco and Ford, directly. They're shills. That's their job.
Besides, you said "our goverments are wasting vast amounts of money on fighting carbon dioxide emissions", now you say they voted 95-0 against it. Make up your mind: do they spend vast amounts of money on it, or don't they? Fact is, they don't. Maintaining the economy from 1997 has been orders of magnitude more expensive.
I'm asking for hard numbers, not your fantasies. I live in Europe, and all I'm seeing is that the price of petroleum is unaffected, airline tickets are dirt cheap, and so are clothes, electronics, food, etc. The only thing that's become more expensive is housing, hardly due to GW regulations, and electricity, entirely due to deregulation of the market.
1) Greenland's glaciers are far older than the name Greenland.
2) How much money do governments spend "fighting" carbon dioxide emissions compared to what they spend on burning fossil fuel? Compared to the handouts to the car industry?
3) What's the revenue of the climate change industry, compared to the oil industry?
4) Considering the above, how do you even remember to breathe?
The moral rights promote the progress of science through encouraging publication. Of course, people do publish despite losing their moral rights when they choose a publisher who forces them to sign over their copyright,
So you're saying that if we provide moral rights, people will publish. But that people publish anyway. It seems to follow, therefore, that providing moral rights does not actually encourage publication, which is pretty well encouraged so far. Would you like to have another try?
No that does not "seem to follow" at all. In some cases, people will publish despite losing their moral rights -- if that's what they have to do to get into their journal of choice. In most cases, people keep their rights when they publish. In most cases, signing over one's copyright would be discouraging. The story above is an example.
Further, there's nothing to "encouragement" that says it's ever going to be absolute. By your "reasoning", getting paid doesn't "encourage" people to work, as some people don't.
I can see that you're a lawyer, with your superficial pretensions to using logic, so I'm not going to bother discussing your inane sophistry further.
The moral rights promote the progress of science through encouraging publication. Of course, people do publish despite losing their moral rights when they choose a publisher who forces them to sign over their copyright, but that's the problem in this story, isn't it?
They shouldn't have to sign over their copyright, and by doing so they stifle the progress of science; they turn a work (in progress, like all science is) of the intellect into an "intellectual" property, something that can be owned and others be forced off of.
So? You only have to point in a direction of a so-called think tank to find PhDs knowingly and intentionally misrepresenting facts and data; I only have to point to your post to show someone being knowingly and intentionally vague in order to make a point.
I don't think John Forbes Nash is stupid. Nor Theodore Kaczynski, as a more dangerous example. There might be a link between schizophrenia and intelligence, but it's almost certainly not simple and causal. Perhaps the ability to distinguish between crazy-thoughts and intelligent-thoughts can be considered a special kind of intelligence, and the ability to entertain crazy-thoughts without taking them too seriously is what's needed for creative genius. Many exceptionally uncreative high-IQ people seem to lack this ability as well, and will hold on to the most ridiculous notions just because it's theirs, but they're hardly crazy.
Oh wow. So getting rid something you get by default vs something you don't get by default yields the most results for the default. Amazing! Now try it with quotation marks around the highly generic name "Windows Media Player" and see who loses.
Also note that your googlefight is a false binary without logical merit: both WMP and Quicktime Player can be shit at the same time. Let's see who is the moron: the idiot with no sense of logic, or the other one, who just happens to dislike Quicktime, along with the rest of the world.
I would only be wrong if the U.S. were the whole world, and it would still be debatable.
The third generation iPod, with USB support, was announced at the same day as the iTMS, more than a year before the iTMS was available in any other country. Of course, a Windows user with a working Firewire connection could use the second generation iPod as well. So your argument really rests on that Firewire is Mac only and the U.S. is the whole world. You're wrong on both accounts.
But instead of arguments from mere speculation based on faulty premises, let's consider the facts:
In the first six months of this year -- after Apple (AAPL ) cut the price and added features -- iPod's market share climbed to 7.1%, estimates NPD analyst Tom Edwards. [...] The week of Aug. 26, Apple is rolling out an iPod for Windows-based PCs. Kevin Hunt, an analyst with Thomas Weisel Partners, estimates that iPod sales should jump 25% over the next two quarters.
That's from Businessweek, August 27, 2002. A slightly more biased source, Mac Observer, claimed the 'iPod is the king of portable music players, according to new dollar market share numbers'. New, as of March 12th, 2003.
It's the most bloated music player out there; it depends (depended?) on Quicktime, a piece of software no Windows user wants if it can be avoided; its support for non-Apple approved audio files is crap; it's difficult to support for non-Apple approved codec developers; it's not exceptionally good at anything, despite being huge and bloated.
That's you, but both the iPod and the iPhone were wildly popular long before iTMS and the app store. Being locked into using Apple's software might be a reason to switch for you, but it's an extremely stupid reason.
The iPod was more than popular before the music store, so it's obviously the other way around in that case: buy an iPod, and you're pretty much locked to iTunes, with the iTMS built-in. The iPod is used to guide people to the music store. In fact, you wouldn't find your way to the music store without iTunes, and it's a pretty obnoxious piece of software you'd best avoid if you don't need it specifically to use an iPod or the iTMS.
So it's like this: The iPod sells itself by being fashionable and shiny, which leads people to use iTunes, which is used to sell music. No one in their right mind would say: I want to buy music online, and from the iTMS, so I'd better start using the pig monster called iTunes which only syncs properly with the iPod. They say: I want an mp3 player. I want that flashy iPhone.
Slashdot Mirror
It depends on the need, really. If you write for print, directly or indirectly, something like LyX should be better, as it enforces certain standards that most Word users break unknowingly or knowingly. Typesetting a Word document takes a lot of work, due to the fact that it's almost always littered with errors like random double spaces, improper sectioning and paragraphing, inconsistent use of styles, etc. Word only looks easy to use, but most users use it incorrectly, and until 2007, it even encouraged improper usage. OpenOffice is actually better in that respect, as it at least makes styles obvious.
Of course, it's a Word world, so Word and OpenOffice are often the only practical options. Technically, from a writer/editor's standpoint, there's nothing particularly good to it. I kind of like Word's commenting feature, or at least prefer it to OpenOffice's.
If you write for the web, and text editor will do. I prefer Emacs for text documents and Vim for configuration files, which makes me a double heretic.
To be fair, though: Word isn't a good text processor. And no, neither is OpenOffice Writer.
No. Print media, where you need PDFs and not necessarily Word, is alive and well. The Kindle is evil, remember? Printing documents for use at school or at the office is, however, replaced by email.
No, the AC you replied to is correct. You read stories for suspense, which really is an invention of mass consumerism. In contrast, all Shakespeare's plays, and all the great Greek tragedies, were based on stories and plots that were already well circulated, and known to the audience.
"Vindicated"? Everything he says from "Also..." on is bullshit. The keyboard outputs a keycode, the OS decides what to do with it, like turning it into a unicode character. A keyboard doesn't know what character it will put on the screen.
I'm not sure what the point of your comment is, since the only "actual fact" in it is that I flamed a guy: so what. And you have the nerve to mention the phrase "actual facts", just before veering into the most retarded straman attack I've seen this century. It makes you come across as a total moron, not as someone "knowing multiple operating systems, how kernels inter-operate with I/O devices and more". Which you most likely don't.
It's amazing what bullshit you Mac fanboys will spew out to defend Apple's shortcomings.
I've tried a stripped-down pirate version (called XP JACKed Edition, IIRC) that would boot and run in a virtual machine limited to 20 MB RAM. It worked fairly well, I even used it to play games like Oblivion for a while (not in a VM, though). XP can be remarkably lightweight.
There's nothing "interesting" about a report from the CEI. You may as well ask their sponsors, like Texaco and Ford, directly. They're shills. That's their job.
Besides, you said "our goverments are wasting vast amounts of money on fighting carbon dioxide emissions", now you say they voted 95-0 against it. Make up your mind: do they spend vast amounts of money on it, or don't they? Fact is, they don't. Maintaining the economy from 1997 has been orders of magnitude more expensive.
I'm asking for hard numbers, not your fantasies. I live in Europe, and all I'm seeing is that the price of petroleum is unaffected, airline tickets are dirt cheap, and so are clothes, electronics, food, etc. The only thing that's become more expensive is housing, hardly due to GW regulations, and electricity, entirely due to deregulation of the market.
You confuse Occam's Razor with ad hominem logic.
1) Greenland's glaciers are far older than the name Greenland.
2) How much money do governments spend "fighting" carbon dioxide emissions compared to what they spend on burning fossil fuel? Compared to the handouts to the car industry?
3) What's the revenue of the climate change industry, compared to the oil industry?
4) Considering the above, how do you even remember to breathe?
The moral rights promote the progress of science through encouraging publication. Of course, people do publish despite losing their moral rights when they choose a publisher who forces them to sign over their copyright,
So you're saying that if we provide moral rights, people will publish. But that people publish anyway. It seems to follow, therefore, that providing moral rights does not actually encourage publication, which is pretty well encouraged so far. Would you like to have another try?
No that does not "seem to follow" at all. In some cases, people will publish despite losing their moral rights -- if that's what they have to do to get into their journal of choice. In most cases, people keep their rights when they publish. In most cases, signing over one's copyright would be discouraging. The story above is an example.
Further, there's nothing to "encouragement" that says it's ever going to be absolute. By your "reasoning", getting paid doesn't "encourage" people to work, as some people don't.
I can see that you're a lawyer, with your superficial pretensions to using logic, so I'm not going to bother discussing your inane sophistry further.
The moral rights promote the progress of science through encouraging publication. Of course, people do publish despite losing their moral rights when they choose a publisher who forces them to sign over their copyright, but that's the problem in this story, isn't it?
They shouldn't have to sign over their copyright, and by doing so they stifle the progress of science; they turn a work (in progress, like all science is) of the intellect into an "intellectual" property, something that can be owned and others be forced off of.
How about this instead: banning unreasonable licenses, ensuring fair use and that the original author retains his/her moral rights.
So? You only have to point in a direction of a so-called think tank to find PhDs knowingly and intentionally misrepresenting facts and data; I only have to point to your post to show someone being knowingly and intentionally vague in order to make a point.
Yes, and you know this because you want to. That's real science, not those bullshit studies you don't like.
I don't think John Forbes Nash is stupid. Nor Theodore Kaczynski, as a more dangerous example. There might be a link between schizophrenia and intelligence, but it's almost certainly not simple and causal. Perhaps the ability to distinguish between crazy-thoughts and intelligent-thoughts can be considered a special kind of intelligence, and the ability to entertain crazy-thoughts without taking them too seriously is what's needed for creative genius. Many exceptionally uncreative high-IQ people seem to lack this ability as well, and will hold on to the most ridiculous notions just because it's theirs, but they're hardly crazy.
Oh wow. So getting rid something you get by default vs something you don't get by default yields the most results for the default. Amazing! Now try it with quotation marks around the highly generic name "Windows Media Player" and see who loses.
Also note that your googlefight is a false binary without logical merit: both WMP and Quicktime Player can be shit at the same time. Let's see who is the moron: the idiot with no sense of logic, or the other one, who just happens to dislike Quicktime, along with the rest of the world.
I would only be wrong if the U.S. were the whole world, and it would still be debatable.
The third generation iPod, with USB support, was announced at the same day as the iTMS, more than a year before the iTMS was available in any other country. Of course, a Windows user with a working Firewire connection could use the second generation iPod as well. So your argument really rests on that Firewire is Mac only and the U.S. is the whole world. You're wrong on both accounts.
But instead of arguments from mere speculation based on faulty premises, let's consider the facts:
That's from Businessweek, August 27, 2002. A slightly more biased source, Mac Observer, claimed the 'iPod is the king of portable music players, according to new dollar market share numbers'. New, as of March 12th, 2003.
So kindly fuck off. You're wrong, I'm right.
No, it's not just a media library. It's also a media player, and not a popular one. In fact, it's very unpopular. Did I also mention that it's shit? Well, it is. Objectively. Shit.
Sure. Read it as the iPhone ... before iTMS and the iPhone ... before the app store.
You're grasping at straws. I said Quicktime, specifically. It's shit.
It's the most bloated music player out there; it depends (depended?) on Quicktime, a piece of software no Windows user wants if it can be avoided; its support for non-Apple approved audio files is crap; it's difficult to support for non-Apple approved codec developers; it's not exceptionally good at anything, despite being huge and bloated.
That's you, but both the iPod and the iPhone were wildly popular long before iTMS and the app store. Being locked into using Apple's software might be a reason to switch for you, but it's an extremely stupid reason.
The iPod was more than popular before the music store, so it's obviously the other way around in that case: buy an iPod, and you're pretty much locked to iTunes, with the iTMS built-in. The iPod is used to guide people to the music store. In fact, you wouldn't find your way to the music store without iTunes, and it's a pretty obnoxious piece of software you'd best avoid if you don't need it specifically to use an iPod or the iTMS.
So it's like this: The iPod sells itself by being fashionable and shiny, which leads people to use iTunes, which is used to sell music. No one in their right mind would say: I want to buy music online, and from the iTMS, so I'd better start using the pig monster called iTunes which only syncs properly with the iPod. They say: I want an mp3 player. I want that flashy iPhone.
The iTMS isn't even particularly cool.