Reminds me of those novellty (sic) press site like xlibris . For "only" a hundered (sic) dollars they would print your buck (sic) and get an ISBN number for you , of course no one would ever take books from them
I have five books currently available from xlibris. For this I didn't pay xlibris a penny, and the books generate a modest but steady steam of income, including money flowing from orders through online bookstores (including amazon.com). Online bookstores typically don't care where they get the books from, they just want to take their cut when they sell a book. Which is as it should be, it seems to me.
I do have gripes about xlibris, but your statements/implications about them are simply wrong.
The midlist authors I know (which is not an insubstantial number) would almost all agree with me that companies like xlibris (and, hence, cdbaby) perform a valuable service in that they allow fans easy access to an artist's output without forcing the artist to deal with megacorporations.
It seems to me that the speed of freenet doesn't really matter if it isn't stable. And it sure isn't stable here. None of the releases for the past six months or so will stay up for more than about a day (old releases would stay up for weeks without a problem).
So while it's nice that they're working on making it faster and more usable (although frankly the current release seemed no faster during the 24 hours that it remained up -- it did seem to use a lot more bandwidth than in the past, though), I'm not sure that all that work is really worth much until the program is more stable.
Believe it. They use FrameMaker. Check out the file info on their sample chapter pdfs.
Right. They let authors use either FrameMaker or M$ Word (or at least this was true in 2000, when I was writing the book for them). Since I had zero experience with FM, I chose to use Word. I suspect that they internally convert Word to FM for actual publication, but my book moved from O'Reilly to Addison-Wesley after my second editor left O'Reilly, so I don't know for sure whether they do this conversion; I just suspect it.
Well, I just hope that it doesn't crash. All recent versions (but not versions from about more than six months ago) have gone down within the first 24 hours or so. Unfortunately, the crash mode consists of the light on my hard drive staying locked on for about ten minutes, during which time I can do nothing at all on my machine. (I suspect that this means that it is simply eating all my swap space, and keeps going until it has used it all.)
I did report the problem, and submitted some detailed info that I was asked for, but no one ever got back to me to tell me if they found and fixed the problem.
Anyway, I just downloaded the release, so let's see what happens. It sure would be nice if it was both as stable as old versions and as usable as newer ones.
I suspect that almost everyone will tell you that LaTeX is worth learning, and they are probably right.
Personally, I prefer plain TeX. I have found that the flexibility in plain TeX more than made up for the fact that I have to write my own macros to do things rather than relying on ones that someone else had created for LaTeX. (And this in some ways is really an advantage anyway, since it means that you really have to understand how TeX works, which for a CS major is probably a Very Good Thing.) So actually, if I were you, I would learn plain TeX first, and then LaTeX. FWIW, I even write novels in plain TeX.
I did have one LaTeX/TeX-related shock a few years ago. I was writing a book for O'Reilly (yes, O'Reilly of all publishers) and they said that I could not use TeX or LaTeX because they had no one there who could work with it. I ended up using the abomination of all abominations -- M$ Word. Man, that was horrible.
We now understand pretty much everything about NTFS and we
have documented it for the benefit of others: http://linux-ntfs.sourceforge.net/ntfs/index.html
Unfortnately, going there gives:
Linux NTFS Project
Page Doesn't Exist
The page you asked for doesn't exist:
http://linux-ntfs.sourceforge.net/ntfs/index.html
Dont save in MS Word format. Use OOo's native format and no data will be lost. If people complain about what format it is, send them the link to OOo and tell them that it runs on tons of platforms and is free.
Not in my job, I can't. When I create a document, it is circulated among people in at least a dozen companies. So they have got to be able to read it in Word.
However, if you send an ms word doc, then there will be people that cannot use it either because of cost or because of platform.
I assume that you say this becuase it has happened to you. It has not happened to me. No one at any of the aforementioned companies has ever complained that a Word document I have circulated is broken. They did complain when I experimented by saving a OOo document in Word format and sending that instead.
Now, please don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that I really expect OOo to be able to produce perfect Word documents. I am saying, though, that OOo (and/or their users) should make it a lot more clear that it really isn't very practical to save any but the simplest documents in M$ Word format and expect Word users to be happy with the result.
Some sort of real warning (a "data has been lost during conversion" rather than a "data may be lost") when the conversion breaks would be useful. Maybe that would help people like me to identify features that I shouldn't use if I want the conversion to be accurate.
File formats are causing a problem. We are unable to send people Open office documents as they can only support MS files. We thus always convert to HTML but valuable information can get lost in the process.
This is a real problem with OOo. I desperately want to be able to recommend OOo to my company (who, like most companies these days, would jump at the chance at saving some money by reducing the number of M$ Office licenses). But I just can't do it. Even fairly simple OOo documents that one saves in so-called Word format do not reproduce correctly in real Word.
I brought one of these to the attention of the developers recently, and the response came down to "yes, it's different, but it's working the way we designed it to work", and the issue was marked as closed. Frankly, I don't care how it's supposed to work. All I know is that if I save something in M$ Word format, I'd better be able to open the document in M$ Word and work on it without information getting lost in the process.
So while I am happy to use OOo myself, if someone else is also going to have to work on the document, I find that it's far safer to use Word instead:-(
Problems with package formats is the endless failed dependancy problems caused between different distros.
I concur, but not for the reason you give (paths changing from one distro/release to the next). What I have seen far to many times goes like this:
Package A says that it needs to update Package X from a.b.c to version a.b.(c+1). Package X for version a.b.(c+1) says that it needs to update Package Y from version d.e to version d.(e+1). And in next to no time, one is being told that one needs to completely reinstall KDE or the DHCP daemon or something else that is utterly unrelated to package A -- and is so fundamental to the system that there is no way that I'm going to change it just to install Package A.
I frequently wonder under these kinds of circumstances how many packages are lying when they see version a.b.c on my system and say that they really need a.b.(c+1). A lot of the time, I suspect that it's just that the person who built the package had version a.b.(c+1) and there is in fact no reason at all why the package wouldn't work under a.b.c.
The long and short of all this is that whereas I love the idea of RPMs, in practice I find them less than useful.
Will 2.6.0 be totally safe to download and run and install in a production environment, or is that going to be kind of a "well thats still sort of experimental be careful"? And if the latter, why the heck aren't they staying in 2.5 until it's ready for production.
It seems to me that the problem is that the number of people who try to use 2.6.0 will be far greater than the number that try 2.5.x. Therefore, the probability that a whole new set of bugs will appear (probably not major ones, but a fair number of minor ones) is quite high, and there's nothing that the kernel developers can really do to prevent this happening. This is even more true than int the past because of the ever-increasing ratio of Linux users to Linux kernel developers.
Note that this case was decided by a 3-judge panel and thus isn't binding precedent.
Yes it is, for district courts within the circuit that rendered the decision (the 9th, according to the original posting). It is not binding on district courts in other circuits.
And if I presented you with a choice of two otherwise identical devices, one of which was labelled "Hi-speed" (sic) and one of which was labelled "Full-speed", you (or the salesman, or Joe Sixpack) would immediately be able to tell which was faster, wouldn't you?
What do you mean, you wouldn't?
Most likely the reason is the obvious one: because service providers are required by statute to provide encryption keys if they know them. In many telephony services, the provider generates the keys -- because the purpose is to keep users' conversations secure from casual eavesdropping, not from eavesdropping by Law Enforcement or the operator itself.
I vaguely recall from history books that there used to be a tax on income, which was temporary and was imposed in order to fund a war. I wonder whatever happened to that tax? Not unnaturally, they called it "income tax".
Interestingly, I tried to use coupon number 148701, which is the same as 594321 but with a different expiration date, but the lady taking the order said that 148701 would not work because the Zaurus is a clearance item. Coupon 594321, however, was accepted, even though it, like the other one, says that clearance items are excluded.
Slashdot Mirror
I have five books currently available from xlibris. For this I didn't pay xlibris a penny, and the books generate a modest but steady steam of income, including money flowing from orders through online bookstores (including amazon.com). Online bookstores typically don't care where they get the books from, they just want to take their cut when they sell a book. Which is as it should be, it seems to me.
I do have gripes about xlibris, but your statements/implications about them are simply wrong.
The midlist authors I know (which is not an insubstantial number) would almost all agree with me that companies like xlibris (and, hence, cdbaby) perform a valuable service in that they allow fans easy access to an artist's output without forcing the artist to deal with megacorporations.
So while it's nice that they're working on making it faster and more usable (although frankly the current release seemed no faster during the 24 hours that it remained up -- it did seem to use a lot more bandwidth than in the past, though), I'm not sure that all that work is really worth much until the program is more stable.
Yes, thanks. Your sig is great.
Right. They let authors use either FrameMaker or M$ Word (or at least this was true in 2000, when I was writing the book for them). Since I had zero experience with FM, I chose to use Word. I suspect that they internally convert Word to FM for actual publication, but my book moved from O'Reilly to Addison-Wesley after my second editor left O'Reilly, so I don't know for sure whether they do this conversion; I just suspect it.
Well, I just hope that it doesn't crash. All recent versions (but not versions from about more than six months ago) have gone down within the first 24 hours or so. Unfortunately, the crash mode consists of the light on my hard drive staying locked on for about ten minutes, during which time I can do nothing at all on my machine. (I suspect that this means that it is simply eating all my swap space, and keeps going until it has used it all.)
I did report the problem, and submitted some detailed info that I was asked for, but no one ever got back to me to tell me if they found and fixed the problem.
Anyway, I just downloaded the release, so let's see what happens. It sure would be nice if it was both as stable as old versions and as usable as newer ones.
Personally, I prefer plain TeX. I have found that the flexibility in plain TeX more than made up for the fact that I have to write my own macros to do things rather than relying on ones that someone else had created for LaTeX. (And this in some ways is really an advantage anyway, since it means that you really have to understand how TeX works, which for a CS major is probably a Very Good Thing.) So actually, if I were you, I would learn plain TeX first, and then LaTeX. FWIW, I even write novels in plain TeX.
I did have one LaTeX/TeX-related shock a few years ago. I was writing a book for O'Reilly (yes, O'Reilly of all publishers) and they said that I could not use TeX or LaTeX because they had no one there who could work with it. I ended up using the abomination of all abominations -- M$ Word. Man, that was horrible.
Unfortnately, going there gives:
Linux NTFS Project
Page Doesn't Exist
The page you asked for doesn't exist: http://linux-ntfs.sourceforge.net/ntfs/index.html
Not in my job, I can't. When I create a document, it is circulated among people in at least a dozen companies. So they have got to be able to read it in Word.
However, if you send an ms word doc, then there will be people that cannot use it either because of cost or because of platform.
I assume that you say this becuase it has happened to you. It has not happened to me. No one at any of the aforementioned companies has ever complained that a Word document I have circulated is broken. They did complain when I experimented by saving a OOo document in Word format and sending that instead.
Now, please don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that I really expect OOo to be able to produce perfect Word documents. I am saying, though, that OOo (and/or their users) should make it a lot more clear that it really isn't very practical to save any but the simplest documents in M$ Word format and expect Word users to be happy with the result.
Some sort of real warning (a "data has been lost during conversion" rather than a "data may be lost") when the conversion breaks would be useful. Maybe that would help people like me to identify features that I shouldn't use if I want the conversion to be accurate.
This is a real problem with OOo. I desperately want to be able to recommend OOo to my company (who, like most companies these days, would jump at the chance at saving some money by reducing the number of M$ Office licenses). But I just can't do it. Even fairly simple OOo documents that one saves in so-called Word format do not reproduce correctly in real Word.
I brought one of these to the attention of the developers recently, and the response came down to "yes, it's different, but it's working the way we designed it to work", and the issue was marked as closed. Frankly, I don't care how it's supposed to work. All I know is that if I save something in M$ Word format, I'd better be able to open the document in M$ Word and work on it without information getting lost in the process.
So while I am happy to use OOo myself, if someone else is also going to have to work on the document, I find that it's far safer to use Word instead :-(
I concur, but not for the reason you give (paths changing from one distro/release to the next). What I have seen far to many times goes like this:
Package A says that it needs to update Package X from a.b.c to version a.b.(c+1). Package X for version a.b.(c+1) says that it needs to update Package Y from version d.e to version d.(e+1). And in next to no time, one is being told that one needs to completely reinstall KDE or the DHCP daemon or something else that is utterly unrelated to package A -- and is so fundamental to the system that there is no way that I'm going to change it just to install Package A.
I frequently wonder under these kinds of circumstances how many packages are lying when they see version a.b.c on my system and say that they really need a.b.(c+1). A lot of the time, I suspect that it's just that the person who built the package had version a.b.(c+1) and there is in fact no reason at all why the package wouldn't work under a.b.c.
The long and short of all this is that whereas I love the idea of RPMs, in practice I find them less than useful.
It seems to me that the problem is that the number of people who try to use 2.6.0 will be far greater than the number that try 2.5.x. Therefore, the probability that a whole new set of bugs will appear (probably not major ones, but a fair number of minor ones) is quite high, and there's nothing that the kernel developers can really do to prevent this happening. This is even more true than int the past because of the ever-increasing ratio of Linux users to Linux kernel developers.
Note that this case was decided by a 3-judge panel and thus isn't binding precedent.
Yes it is, for district courts within the circuit that rendered the decision (the 9th, according to the original posting). It is not binding on district courts in other circuits.
And if I presented you with a choice of two otherwise identical devices, one of which was labelled "Hi-speed" (sic) and one of which was labelled "Full-speed", you (or the salesman, or Joe Sixpack) would immediately be able to tell which was faster, wouldn't you? What do you mean, you wouldn't?
Most likely the reason is the obvious one: because service providers are required by statute to provide encryption keys if they know them. In many telephony services, the provider generates the keys -- because the purpose is to keep users' conversations secure from casual eavesdropping, not from eavesdropping by Law Enforcement or the operator itself.
I vaguely recall from history books that there used to be a tax on income, which was temporary and was imposed in order to fund a war. I wonder whatever happened to that tax? Not unnaturally, they called it "income tax".
Thanks for this. I thought I had missed out.
Interestingly, I tried to use coupon number 148701, which is the same as 594321 but with a different expiration date, but the lady taking the order said that 148701 would not work because the Zaurus is a clearance item. Coupon 594321, however, was accepted, even though it, like the other one, says that clearance items are excluded.
Total cost including tax, etc. was $200.01.