I'm sorry, but Tolkien and Lewis (CS Lewis?!?) are not great writers, and won't be considered as such in the future. Writers feted in their own time (by the public or the authorities) are often forgotten about a century later.
I would change "often" to "sometimes," because there are simply too many counter examples. Pope, for instance, was the richest writer of his time, and is still considered a canonical author who advanced the English language. Shakespeare was fairly popular, and could only write because it brought him enough money to continue; he eventually bought a family coat of arms for an enormous amount at the time. Sometimes popular writers fall in and out of favor in the academic/critical eye -- think of someone like Fanny Fern, who was an enormously popular writer in her day, before she was widely ignored and derided in the first half of the twentieth century, yet now her work appears in a variety of anthologies.
I don't think popularity necessary impedes or ensures future relevence. I don't think Rowling is a very good writer, but Tolkien has long been popular before the movies came out -- I also first read him when I was 10 -- and after the movie hysteria dies down I think he will still be popular, both for the quality of his writing and the depth and complexity of his work. Academics have done a great deal of work on LOTR, and I see no reason for that to stop. The best analog I can imagine for Tolkien is Raymond Chandler, who also invented a genre (or sub-genre, arguably), and was critically panned as pulp when he wrote before being rediscovered as a fascinating and literary figure later in life. A quick search of Google Scholar shows 2,000 hits on him. Searching the JSTOR English archives finds more than the 200 hit maximum on Chandler. I think both are significant popular writers who eventually acquired the positive reputation they deserve.
With everyone and his brother schlepping another icon manager or DVD collection database, there's an abundance of frivolous software and a shortage of work on truly useful, liberating products like OOo.
This may occur in part because 1) people assume others will pick up the slack, 2) the scope effort necessary to write an Aqua version is massive and 3) there aren't enough interested OS X developers to go around.
The second point is particularly significant: I have neither the time nor the skill to do any serious development for OOo, and from looking at the 1.1.1 codebase, I'm amazed that anyone knows what the hell each piece is supposed to do. 2.0 is supposed to be much cleaner, but even so, the effort necessary to get an OS X native version will demand many man-years. An icon manager or DVD collection database can take a week or a month, but something like OOo means a much greater committment.
I'm not doubting you, necessarily, since I haven't paid close attention to the project; but I understand that there are two people involved, even if they are waiting for 2.0 final to really work.
I don't think you can have semi-undying loyalty to something; it's a binary proposition: either you're undying or possibly dying. Since you say that you "had to cave in and return to Office:Mac," I think we can characterize your loyalty level as dead, or at least comatose, unless we want to consider possibilities concerning vampirism (sp?) or zombism.
(sp, once again -- my dead-tree Merriam-Webster's Collegiate won't help me with the tendency to act like a zombie or vampire).
I'd like one too, but it isn't coming until 2.0; however, the OS X porting page recently changed to say that a true Mac port is "slowing." My understanding from reading the lists is that only two people are actively working on the OS X Aqua version.
It's going to be a while before we see a true OS X version of OOo.
That's actually a fine question. When I have 6 Word windows open, I have no good way to get from window 1 to 5 without hitting cmd~ four times. Still, that solution is better, if not as elegant. It's the sort of question that might be better posted at the Ars Mac Forum, which is the best of its kind I've found. If you're having Mac troubles, it's probably the place you're most likely to find help.
Hit command (the apple button)-tab to cycle through programs and command-tilde (~) to cycle through windows in a particular program. Command and the direction of an arrow left, right up or down will bring you to the end of lines, right and left, or the end of a field, up or down. That might be part of the "strange tangle" you describe, but I've found that I don't have to take my hands off the keyboard often.
There's no technical reason for Powermac 1.8-single CPU to have slower bus than its siblings, dual G5 Powermacs, it's done only to make them "different" so higher price tag on dual is more "justified".
Chips need to meet a tolerance range to be considered acceptable, and that includes FSB range; as such, I'm guessing that Apple puts 1.8 ghz chips that otherwise wouldn't make the cut into the single processor machines and reduces the FSB. Meanwhile, they can introduce a headless Mac for less money than they'd be willing to sell otherwise.
Better yet, install FreeBSD. Leave them at a command prompt. You'll either discover competant admins or force them to do something marginally more productive with their time, like watch TV.
I can't argue refusing the Dark Side (EDS), but what's wrong with learning something new?
Re:I'm seeing a trend in the posts
on
TV Piracy is Next
·
· Score: 1
People said the same thing about music. A solution arrives -- one from which you can even remove the DRM -- and music sharing networks still get plenty of traffic.
Re:TV is actually worse than movies...
on
TV Piracy is Next
·
· Score: 1
Gun, meet foot.
I don't think dropping a gun on one's foot would hurt that much, unless it were a really heavy gun or accidently discharged upwards and the person were leaning over.
Maybe you mean "bullet meet foot," assuming that the holder of the gun fired the bullet and didn't drop it, because a dropped bullet would probably hurt even less than a dropped gun. Plus there wouldn't be a ~1d12 chance of discharge.
Also 90% of TV is very low quality crap... high quality series (think 24, Friends...
I think you've been watching too much TV, because 2/3 of the shows you cite are part of the 90%. To find the actually good stuff (aside from the Simpsons) try HBO for the Sopranos and Six Feet Under.
It's not taboo to link to another person's website without their permission, but it is polite to notify that person in advance if you're going to direct an avalanche of traffic that their server is unlikely to handle.
Linking to CNN is one thing; linking to Joe's Weblog, average daily hits 150, is another.
Slashdot Mirror
Only on /. do I get modded Informative instead of funny for a joke about a three-way...
I would change "often" to "sometimes," because there are simply too many counter examples. Pope, for instance, was the richest writer of his time, and is still considered a canonical author who advanced the English language. Shakespeare was fairly popular, and could only write because it brought him enough money to continue; he eventually bought a family coat of arms for an enormous amount at the time. Sometimes popular writers fall in and out of favor in the academic/critical eye -- think of someone like Fanny Fern, who was an enormously popular writer in her day, before she was widely ignored and derided in the first half of the twentieth century, yet now her work appears in a variety of anthologies.
I don't think popularity necessary impedes or ensures future relevence. I don't think Rowling is a very good writer, but Tolkien has long been popular before the movies came out -- I also first read him when I was 10 -- and after the movie hysteria dies down I think he will still be popular, both for the quality of his writing and the depth and complexity of his work. Academics have done a great deal of work on LOTR, and I see no reason for that to stop. The best analog I can imagine for Tolkien is Raymond Chandler, who also invented a genre (or sub-genre, arguably), and was critically panned as pulp when he wrote before being rediscovered as a fascinating and literary figure later in life. A quick search of Google Scholar shows 2,000 hits on him. Searching the JSTOR English archives finds more than the 200 hit maximum on Chandler. I think both are significant popular writers who eventually acquired the positive reputation they deserve.
Although I'm also a bit frightened by the fact that I read your post and thought "wait, what's his CON" before I laughed.
Office Space.
*Next joke post: Do you think you'd get modded +5 nearly as much if you didn't mention someone else mentioning Wil Wheaton in his post?
I bet Wil's thinking, "No, but I would like a free iPod..."
It helps too if you look like an actor.
Everyone knows #11 is ??? and #12 is Profit!
You can also eject through a keyboard key, which I see both on my PowerBook's keyboard and my external keyboard.
This may occur in part because 1) people assume others will pick up the slack, 2) the scope effort necessary to write an Aqua version is massive and 3) there aren't enough interested OS X developers to go around.
The second point is particularly significant: I have neither the time nor the skill to do any serious development for OOo, and from looking at the 1.1.1 codebase, I'm amazed that anyone knows what the hell each piece is supposed to do. 2.0 is supposed to be much cleaner, but even so, the effort necessary to get an OS X native version will demand many man-years. An icon manager or DVD collection database can take a week or a month, but something like OOo means a much greater committment.
I'm not doubting you, necessarily, since I haven't paid close attention to the project; but I understand that there are two people involved, even if they are waiting for 2.0 final to really work.
Is that a slave advertisment? If so, does it relate to this comment?
"You've had that desktop for over a week? Throw that junk away man it's an antique."
-- Weird Al.
I don't think you can have semi-undying loyalty to something; it's a binary proposition: either you're undying or possibly dying. Since you say that you "had to cave in and return to Office:Mac," I think we can characterize your loyalty level as dead, or at least comatose, unless we want to consider possibilities concerning vampirism (sp?) or zombism.
(sp, once again -- my dead-tree Merriam-Webster's Collegiate won't help me with the tendency to act like a zombie or vampire).
It's going to be a while before we see a true OS X version of OOo.
That's actually a fine question. When I have 6 Word windows open, I have no good way to get from window 1 to 5 without hitting cmd~ four times. Still, that solution is better, if not as elegant. It's the sort of question that might be better posted at the Ars Mac Forum, which is the best of its kind I've found. If you're having Mac troubles, it's probably the place you're most likely to find help.
Hit command (the apple button)-tab to cycle through programs and command-tilde (~) to cycle through windows in a particular program. Command and the direction of an arrow left, right up or down will bring you to the end of lines, right and left, or the end of a field, up or down. That might be part of the "strange tangle" you describe, but I've found that I don't have to take my hands off the keyboard often.
Chips need to meet a tolerance range to be considered acceptable, and that includes FSB range; as such, I'm guessing that Apple puts 1.8 ghz chips that otherwise wouldn't make the cut into the single processor machines and reduces the FSB. Meanwhile, they can introduce a headless Mac for less money than they'd be willing to sell otherwise.
Better yet, install FreeBSD. Leave them at a command prompt. You'll either discover competant admins or force them to do something marginally more productive with their time, like watch TV.
I can't argue refusing the Dark Side (EDS), but what's wrong with learning something new?
People said the same thing about music. A solution arrives -- one from which you can even remove the DRM -- and music sharing networks still get plenty of traffic.
I don't think dropping a gun on one's foot would hurt that much, unless it were a really heavy gun or accidently discharged upwards and the person were leaning over.
Maybe you mean "bullet meet foot," assuming that the holder of the gun fired the bullet and didn't drop it, because a dropped bullet would probably hurt even less than a dropped gun. Plus there wouldn't be a ~1d12 chance of discharge.
I think you've been watching too much TV, because 2/3 of the shows you cite are part of the 90%. To find the actually good stuff (aside from the Simpsons) try HBO for the Sopranos and Six Feet Under.
Linking to CNN is one thing; linking to Joe's Weblog, average daily hits 150, is another.
Quite easily.