Yeah... but.com is only valuable because only a few of those top level domains exist. It's essentially the same thing, and GP's point is perfectly valid.
No, it's not. ".com" is a company. The idea of the more descriptive TLDs, like eg ".museum". is that it implies that what you find at that site is a legitimate member of that group. So Smithsonian.museum will take you to the actual Smithsonian Institute. If Amazon owned ".book" they would work to make it imply that "Book_title.book" was the legitimate site for any book to have. Every other publisher and/or author would end up having to either pay Amazon to get this, or have Amazon links all over it. Or more likely, both. Amazon would effectively have a tax on every book published.
The end of the article source is pretty depressing. 10-15 years away from human trials. They said that 10-15 years ago.
Longer. I've been reading reports a bit this kind of research every couple of years for at least 20 years. And now every year or two I have to have a root canal, and/or crown, or just extraction. My time is running out before I end up like my father with full dentures.
The Comics Code Authority was formed by the Comics Magazine Association of America, to allow the comic publishers to self-regulate the content of comic books in the United States. It was formed as an alternative to government regulation....Fredric Wertham's 1954 book Seduction of the Innocent had rallied opposition to this type of material in comics, arguing that it was harmful to the children who made up a large segment of the comic book audience. The Senate Subcommittee on Juvenile Delinquency hearings in 1954, which focused specifically on comic books, had many publishers concerned about government regulation, prompting them to form a self-regulatory body instead.... Before the CCA was adopted, some cities had already been organizing public burnings and bans on comic books.
So yes, $125 is something to bitch about. That's a lot of money when you're scraping by and trying to get your first bits of work out there. Especially when you know that early in your self-publishing career, it's very likely it might not even sell enough to recoup that, even if the work is good.
Realistically, if you have no other income than self publishing, you are dead broke and you should get a job flipping burgers and write on your time off. I know a lot of authors, literally hundreds, since I work in publishing. Only a handful make a living out of it. Most of those started as journalists. Not one could pay the rent from self publishing. And here, ISBNs are free, and printing is very cheap. It's marketing that's hard, and self publishing means you have a hundred times as much competition.
Bowker may be a monopoly in the US, I don't know. . Every country has its own series. In Hong Kong the government (part of the public library system) issues ISBNs on demand, free I charge authors $20 to supply a HK ISBN if they don't want to get one themself. Amazon numbers work and are free, but of course you can only use them if you sell exclusively through Amazon. So it may not be such a great saving.
For once, the Slashdot headline is actually more sensible. You have to read three paragraphs of TFA to find that "relatively recently" means "500 million years ago". It's only "recent" in comparison to the other, billions of years old, water channels previously known.
The "integration" of IE/Trident in modern versions of Windows is exactly the same as the "integration" of Safari/Webkit on OS X
Even if that were true, so what? OSX wasn't bundled with over 90% of PCs. The issue is monopolistic behaviour. Apple might be sued for such with regards to smartphones, but not PCs.
(people making fun of this display technical ignorance).
Well, fuck you. Of course its possible to have a rendering engine separate from the browser. But if MS had any separation I never noticed it. Either the full IE popped up and then often made itself the default browser, or nothing worked. And if by "modern" you mean Win 7 and 8, that isn't what this case or my comments were about.
Many of them hardcoded launching IE because they were certain it was on the machine, rather than using any mechanism to launch a preferred browser.
Developers did it because MS encouraged them to. Thus reinforcing the lock in which is what the whole point of the EU complaint. Even if you went to a great deal of trouble to extirpate IE from your PC, you'd install some program and it would auomatically reinstall the fucking thing to take you to their fucking website or show you a help page. Or it would fail to install at all if you didn't let it.
After Windows 95, it is basically impossible to "switch off". No matter what default browser you chose, IE was likely to pop up. And doing so it opened big security holes.
They're not talking about robots, but androids. We don't need ersatz human slaves to do housework. Just a machine, something small that can fold itself up and go in a cupboard when it's not needed. Not a human sized thing lumbering around the house.
If you must have something big, the Jetson's "Betty" would do.
Bullshit. Passengers and drivers eat. And from the size of the asses of most drivers, I think that is unlikely they eat less than bikers. Bored, inactive people tend to eat a lot of junk food.
Basically, if this asshole really wanted to tax respired CO2, he'd tax food, not bikes.
. If you could build a clone of Office that looked like it and had everything in the same place, and was cheaper, that would be the end of Office in a second.
That was one of the ways MS got its foot in the door in the 90s. Early versions of MS Office had a WordPerfect compatibility mode. You could use the exact same keystrokes as in WP to achieve the same results. And still, MS Office has an excellent filter to read and write WordPerfect format files. In fact, I use that as the safest way to transfer files between various software I use rather then doc or rtf, as its a lot more stable and generally compatible.
I don't do the DTP in Word. That would be a horror for real DTP production. I've used Pagemaker, but currently I use Ventura.
But before I import the text into the DTP process, I have to make it rational. Styling, page and line breaks, and formatting in general. If I just dump it as-is I have to spend even more time cleaning it up in DTP.
If it's just paragraphs of text, like most novels, I can strip most of the extraneous Word crap out easily enough. But when it's more structured, I have to convert all the ad hoc formatting to something that makes sense so the DTP styles are appropriate and consistent. I've got a bunch of macros to fix common things, but users, and Microsoft, keep coming up with new ass-backwards ways of doing things. Mostly, by the time I get involved, the book is already written, so there is no point in my trying to educate the users.
For tables, I've found that pasting them into Excel and exporting from there gives cleaner results than directly from Word. Indents are less of a problem, Generally I just delete all of them and reapply logically later, since the authors are basically clueless about that there is no need to preserve the tabs, spaces, whatever they did. Except for poetry, but that's far more bespoke layout.
I had much less hassle back in the floppy disk era; WordStar and WordPerfect, even Word v5. Took me 10 minutes to format a book. Now I have to spend hours stripping crap out of the files to get clean logically organised text before I can do anything with it.
Since then they've added gigabytes of features, and made it harder and harder to use correctly.
I deal with documents made by a lot of people, smart people, professors, managers, engineers. Not one has ever had a fucking clue how to use any feature beyond directly selecting text and formatting it. No one knows how to use styles, because MS made that once vital feature so user-friendly that it will fuck up your entire document by trying to anticipate what you want and hiding the options to control them.
I've just spent half a day cleaning up a book document. The writer had lots of block text quotes. She made them by tabbing in each line individually and putting a hard line break at the end of each line. I spent an hour converting those to actual Block Text styles. Then all the italics were for some idiotic reason (not her fault) styled as "Times Roman Italic" font, not "Times Roman" with italic style, which is what they should have been . That took another hour to fix. All headings were directly formatted, so they had to be made into heading styles. And so on.
All because MS concentrates on flashy crap like "Ribbons" and embedded video and moves all the important structural stuff out of sight in case it scares the users. It would be great if it actually worked and produced better documents more easily at the end of the day, but it demonstrably doesn't. People spend much more time and make much uglier documents now than they did at any time since wordprocessing was invented.
So now, a new version of Word every 90 days. Oh joy.
Maybe I should just tell authors to print their documents out and pay someone to retype it.
Somebody should invent some way to cool the air down.
Moron. It's not about office workers. RTFA.
The impact will be felt the most by those who work outside or in hot environments, such as firefighters, bakery workers, farmers, construction workers, factory workers, and others who will be forced to slow down due to increases in heat and humidity.
Let me know when you can aircondition a farm or construction site.
Tenfold = ten times as much. Not one tenth. If you mean "one tenth" SAY "one tenth". "reduce tenfold" literally means take away ten times. i.e. 1-10 = -9 Since that's nonsense, we can only guess what they actually mean
Really? I think you're trying to say "reduce by 90%".
Or you could have just quoted TFA : "for less than a tenth of such powderâ(TM)s current price". But that's The Economist, their editors actually care about both the English language and making sense.
Well, in The Core, they had a burrowing machine that drilled down the Earth's core and set off several nukes to spin up the core and restore the magnetic field.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah... but .com is only valuable because only a few of those top level domains exist. It's essentially the same thing, and GP's point is perfectly valid.
No, it's not. ".com" is a company. The idea of the more descriptive TLDs, like eg ".museum". is that it implies that what you find at that site is a legitimate member of that group. So Smithsonian.museum will take you to the actual Smithsonian Institute. If Amazon owned ".book" they would work to make it imply that "Book_title.book" was the legitimate site for any book to have. Every other publisher and/or author would end up having to either pay Amazon to get this, or have Amazon links all over it. Or more likely, both. Amazon would effectively have a tax on every book published.
The end of the article source is pretty depressing. 10-15 years away from human trials. They said that 10-15 years ago.
Longer. I've been reading reports a bit this kind of research every couple of years for at least 20 years. And now every year or two I have to have a root canal, and/or crown, or just extraction. My time is running out before I end up like my father with full dentures.
Were people really saying that about comic books 50 years ago?
The Comics Code, formed 1954. Their stamp was on the cover of just about every comic until about 2001.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comics_Code_Authority
So yes, $125 is something to bitch about. That's a lot of money when you're scraping by and trying to get your first bits of work out there. Especially when you know that early in your self-publishing career, it's very likely it might not even sell enough to recoup that, even if the work is good.
Realistically, if you have no other income than self publishing, you are dead broke and you should get a job flipping burgers and write on your time off. I know a lot of authors, literally hundreds, since I work in publishing. Only a handful make a living out of it. Most of those started as journalists. Not one could pay the rent from self publishing. And here, ISBNs are free, and printing is very cheap. It's marketing that's hard, and self publishing means you have a hundred times as much competition.
Bowker may be a monopoly in the US, I don't know. . Every country has its own series. In Hong Kong the government (part of the public library system) issues ISBNs on demand, free I charge authors $20 to supply a HK ISBN if they don't want to get one themself. Amazon numbers work and are free, but of course you can only use them if you sell exclusively through Amazon. So it may not be such a great saving.
Back in the 1930s I guess it was talkies, so they brought in the Hayes Code.
Whatever is the "new" media" is assumed to be evil and corrupting.
It might be, but you do have to prove it.
There is no discernable difference between the products when you use them. This is not true for physical goods like cameras, cars, houses, etc.
But is is pretty much true for books, CDs, DVDs,. Even used vinyl records, cassette tapes if treated with care sound as good as new.
98% of the books I buy are used. Or from a library.
The difference is that you don't get them as easily or as quickly as the new ones, and maybe you have to wait for a copy t be offered.
Basically, as long as the previous owner has not kept a copy, same as with physical media.
They stand to lose more revenue than with physical products.
Compared with the current situation where there is virtually no legal resale of digital media, of course. Tough.
>>Relatively recently
>>Ancient
For once, the Slashdot headline is actually more sensible.
You have to read three paragraphs of TFA to find that "relatively recently" means "500 million years ago". It's only "recent" in comparison to the other, billions of years old, water channels previously known.
The "integration" of IE/Trident in modern versions of Windows is exactly the same as the "integration" of Safari/Webkit on OS X
Even if that were true, so what? OSX wasn't bundled with over 90% of PCs. The issue is monopolistic behaviour. Apple might be sued for such with regards to smartphones, but not PCs.
(people making fun of this display technical ignorance).
Well, fuck you. Of course its possible to have a rendering engine separate from the browser. But if MS had any separation I never noticed it. Either the full IE popped up and then often made itself the default browser, or nothing worked. And if by "modern" you mean Win 7 and 8, that isn't what this case or my comments were about.
Many of them hardcoded launching IE because they were certain it was on the machine, rather than using any mechanism to launch a preferred browser.
Developers did it because MS encouraged them to. Thus reinforcing the lock in which is what the whole point of the EU complaint. Even if you went to a great deal of trouble to extirpate IE from your PC, you'd install some program and it would auomatically reinstall the fucking thing to take you to their fucking website or show you a help page. Or it would fail to install at all if you didn't let it.
People never had an issue switching off of IE
After Windows 95, it is basically impossible to "switch off". No matter what default browser you chose, IE was likely to pop up. And doing so it opened big security holes.
If you must have something big, the Jetson's "Betty" would do.
I don't even know how to cuss or ask for a beer in Chinese.
Pok gai -- aw yiu bia jou!
Parent has a very valid point:
Bullshit. Passengers and drivers eat. And from the size of the asses of most drivers, I think that is unlikely they eat less than bikers. Bored, inactive people tend to eat a lot of junk food.
Basically, if this asshole really wanted to tax respired CO2, he'd tax food, not bikes.
. If you could build a clone of Office that looked like it and had everything in the same place, and was cheaper, that would be the end of Office in a second.
That was one of the ways MS got its foot in the door in the 90s. Early versions of MS Office had a WordPerfect compatibility mode. You could use the exact same keystrokes as in WP to achieve the same results. And still, MS Office has an excellent filter to read and write WordPerfect format files. In fact, I use that as the safest way to transfer files between various software I use rather then doc or rtf, as its a lot more stable and generally compatible.
But before I import the text into the DTP process, I have to make it rational. Styling, page and line breaks, and formatting in general. If I just dump it as-is I have to spend even more time cleaning it up in DTP.
If it's just paragraphs of text, like most novels, I can strip most of the extraneous Word crap out easily enough. But when it's more structured, I have to convert all the ad hoc formatting to something that makes sense so the DTP styles are appropriate and consistent. I've got a bunch of macros to fix common things, but users, and Microsoft, keep coming up with new ass-backwards ways of doing things. Mostly, by the time I get involved, the book is already written, so there is no point in my trying to educate the users.
For tables, I've found that pasting them into Excel and exporting from there gives cleaner results than directly from Word. Indents are less of a problem, Generally I just delete all of them and reapply logically later, since the authors are basically clueless about that there is no need to preserve the tabs, spaces, whatever they did. Except for poetry, but that's far more bespoke layout.
I had much less hassle back in the floppy disk era; WordStar and WordPerfect, even Word v5. Took me 10 minutes to format a book. Now I have to spend hours stripping crap out of the files to get clean logically organised text before I can do anything with it.
Since then they've added gigabytes of features, and made it harder and harder to use correctly.
I deal with documents made by a lot of people, smart people, professors, managers, engineers. Not one has ever had a fucking clue how to use any feature beyond directly selecting text and formatting it. No one knows how to use styles, because MS made that once vital feature so user-friendly that it will fuck up your entire document by trying to anticipate what you want and hiding the options to control them.
I've just spent half a day cleaning up a book document. The writer had lots of block text quotes. She made them by tabbing in each line individually and putting a hard line break at the end of each line. I spent an hour converting those to actual Block Text styles. Then all the italics were for some idiotic reason (not her fault) styled as "Times Roman Italic" font, not "Times Roman" with italic style, which is what they should have been . That took another hour to fix. All headings were directly formatted, so they had to be made into heading styles. And so on.
All because MS concentrates on flashy crap like "Ribbons" and embedded video and moves all the important structural stuff out of sight in case it scares the users. It would be great if it actually worked and produced better documents more easily at the end of the day, but it demonstrably doesn't. People spend much more time and make much uglier documents now than they did at any time since wordprocessing was invented.
So now, a new version of Word every 90 days. Oh joy.
Maybe I should just tell authors to print their documents out and pay someone to retype it.
Ignores, since it has nothing to do with those films, aside from having one of the same actors.
Anyway, tell NOAA, they wrote the report.
Somebody should invent some way to cool the air down.
Moron. It's not about office workers. RTFA.
Let me know when you can aircondition a farm or construction site.
The key word is 'reduce'. If he said: "increased the price tenfold" (to mean costing 10x as much), you wouldn't complain then.
Because you can increase tenfold. Not reduce.He actually means reduce by 90%. Or reduce to one tenth. "Tenfold" is nonsense.
Tenfold = ten times as much. Not one tenth. If you mean "one tenth" SAY "one tenth".
"reduce tenfold" literally means take away ten times. i.e. 1-10 = -9 Since that's nonsense, we can only guess what they actually mean
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/tenfold
tenfold adjective. ten times as great or as numerous:
Reduce the prices ten-fold
Really? I think you're trying to say "reduce by 90%".
Or you could have just quoted TFA : "for less than a tenth of such powderâ(TM)s current price". But that's The Economist, their editors actually care about both the English language and making sense.
Well, in The Core, they had a burrowing machine that drilled down the Earth's core and set off several nukes to spin up the core and restore the magnetic field.
I think we should get to call ourselves what we wish, and others should respect that, no?
Says the guy who labels Democrats as "leftist" and "liberals".
And a related problem with some designations of "ourselves" is that you implicitly label others as being the opposite.