It's just as short sighted as thinking self-publishing is the same as being published by a traditional, royalty-paying publisher. It isn't. There's no selection for quality, no professional editing (usually, but YMMV and probably does), no marketing except for what the author/publisher is able to do on their own and very limited availability in brick-and-mortar stores. I'm not saying, mind you, that self-published books are junque (and I'm especially not saying that about the OP's book) but the quality can be rather unpredictable.
I say this, mind you, as an unpublished writer (Three novels finished but not sold, working on the fourth.) who also has a humor book in print through Xlibris. I don't call myself a published writer, because, of course, Xlibris is POD and even I don't count that as getting published.
Why do I care? It's the difference between doing things right, and doing them wrong. And, for that matter, what difference does it make to you what I think? If you like putting sites for baby pictures on a.com, go right ahead, I'm not stopping you. I may have an unflattering opinion of you, but I doubt that will stop you.
I'm sorry if what I posted pushed one of your buttons; it wasn't intended.
What I meant by "inappropriate" is that.com means commercial, and since my site is strictly a vanity site,.com wasn't the most appropriate tld for me. I could have taken.info, but my hosting company was charging the same for.us as for.com, so that seemed the most reasonable choice for me.
One thing I've been seeing lately is people using.com for the most frivolous reasons. As an example, I know a pair of yuppies who registered a domain just to host photos of their infant daughter instead of putting them on their own site. Naturally, they made it a.com even though.info would have been far more appropriate.
Exactly, and that's the main reason my vanity domain is.us not.com like all those twitiots out there. Granted, the.com version of my name was already in use (by a graphics design company, I think) but even if it weren't, I'd not have taken it because it's not appropriate.
Just do what I do then: buy bits and pieces and assemble them into the computer you want instead of buying what some company decides is right for you. You don't even need to be a hardware guru to do this, just know one. That's what I do, I have a friend do all my hardware work because he's much better at it than I'd be. Build your own box and either move the hard drive over, clone it, or start off fresh with whatever OS you want.
That you are. And, unless I miss my guess, showing how long it's been since you took a good look at Linux. It now comes with drivers for most common peripherals, and almost every mainstream distro (except Gentoo, of course, but that's a special case) provides precompiled kernels. If you need to work with MS Office files, OpenOffice reads, edits and saves in that format if you need it to, and I've never had the slightest compatibility issues. Linux is much easier to work with now than it was ten years ago, and for somebody with your computer experience, it's more than ready for Prime Time. Again, I'm not saying you must or even should switch, just making sure you understand that it's a viable option now.
It's very easy: Passover comes on exactly the same dates every year in the Jewish Calendar. The Jewish and Gregorian calendars are different, so the date wanders around the Gregorian Calendar to a small extent while remaining fixed in the Jewish one.
The idea that we'll still believe in ANY religion in 5,700,000 years is stupid.
That's not the point, nor is that claimed. What the article meant was that the cycle is that long, not that we'd still be using it when it starts repeating.
I gather from your post that you have nothing but contempt for anybody who you consider to be a fundamentalist. That's your privilege, of course. However, I see no reason for you to bring it into this discussion of the mathematical calculations behind determining the date of a religious holiday celebrated around the world by millions of people, few of whom could possibly be considered fundamentalists.
If by chance I'm forced into Vista, I too am moving to Mac.
Why? That means buying a new computer whether you need it or not. Why not just move over to Linux? That way you can use your existing computer. Not only that, Linux isn't as resource intensive as Windows (especially Windows iCandy) so you'll find your current box working faster than ever. Not saying you must chose Linux, or that you'd be stupid not to, just asking why you don't consider it a viable option.
What's happened since is that the creators sold out to corporations and the corporations have been throwing their weight around with our lawmakers.
No, that's not what happened. What did happen is that the US became a party to The Berne Convention, which specifies a minimum term for a copyright of the life of the creator plus 50 years. I won't say that various corporations aren't happy with this, but the idea has been part of copyright law in Europe for over a century.
Not everybody maximizes every window, you know. The idea is to have several different programs open and be able to see all of them without minimizing or moving any of them. HTH, HAND.
I did tech support for about four months once, for a small company. From what I could tell, I was the only person in that company who bothered customizing my Win2K desktop, instead of just looking at the default wallpaper day in and day out. There really are a lot of people, some of them skilled computer users, who just take whatever comes out of the box and let it go at that.
Not really that big a deal... I guess for $150 VS a few clicks and reboots, I'd rather keep the cash.
Me, I'd rather keep telling the stupid computer that I want to reboot later. That way I only have to do it once and get rid of all that cruft at the same time. Of course, if you really like watching it reboot, you can do it your way. Whatever floats your boat.
How many times have you put in blah@blahblah.com on some stupid form?
I haven't done that, but I used to do something much worse. At one point, for my sins, I served time on the helldesk of an ISP. Every now and then I'd make a note of the email address of a foul-mouthed, abusive caller who really didn't deserve the good service i tried to give everybody. For the next several weeks I'd have fun signing them up for mailing lists, newsletters and using their name on those stupid webforms that want your email address even though they have no legitimate use for it.
So, just have the reply address be foo@donotreply.company.com and have your incoming mailswerver send all mail addressed to that subdomain to/dev/null.
It's a bit off-topic, but a friend of mine pointed out that as all of the Bermuda Triangle is inside the Bermuda Triangle, shouldn't it make itself vanish?
...and if your customers get pissed off enough to switch to a competitor, it doesn't matter how in the wrong they were. You still lost.
That would be true if there were enough competition in the OS market for Microsoft to be concerned about it. For most people, if you have a PC, you use Windows because that's all that's available. It's not that they wouldn't know how to install Linux, or are afraid to try something new, they're not even aware of it. And, as long as that's true, Microsoft won't care about pissing off their customers because for all practical purposes they have a monopoly.
Almost every Linux distribution can manage this without any problem. Many of them doing it for free (as in beer).
I don't know about Ubuntu, as I've never used it. I do, however, know that it works just fine on Fedora, and why. On Fedora, the updater only selects the packages you need for the software (including drivers) you have installed, and installs them one-by-one. If one doesn't work, it goes on to the next, and lets you know at the end what issues it had. I'm only guessing, of course, but the new SP1 for Windows iCandy may well be a monolithic block that's shoved in "all or nothing" fashion, and if any part of it can't go, the whole process aborts. It's just a guess, of course, but it would explain why there's so many problems reported.
You stated your unwillingness to support an organization that supports 9 of 10 of the first Amendments.
No, I stated my unwillingness to support an organization that claims to support the civil liberties of American citizens, but only does so in practice when it supports their agenda. There have been many cases, such as Nativity scenes at Christmas, where they've helped anti-religious minorities force their opinions on the majority and, in general, I almost always think they're on the wrong side. It's a shame, really, because in earlier years they did such good work. The Second Amendment is only one of the many reasons I won't support them, regardless of your insulting manor and attempts to put words into my mouth. I can only guess that you are so close-minded that you think that everybody who doesn't agree exactly with you must be stupid, insane or evil, if not all three. Frankly, discussing this with you is a waste of my time because you're responding to what you wanted me to say, not what I did.
I find that hard to believe, seeing that I read it in the early '60s. The book Ninteen Eighty-Four was published in 1949 (The year I was born, BTW.) and the first feature film in 1956.
I know; I was simplifying. The movie came out first, and Sir Arthur made sure that the book followed the script as shot, making it, in effect, a novelization.
"Clarke's best-known novel, "2001: A Space Odyssey," became the basis of the 1968 film of the same name, directed by Stanley Kubrick."
It's such a shame, isn't it, that they can't get things right in these articles, even when the slightest research would have shown the writer that the novel Space Odyssey was written as a novelization of the classic movie. The movie itself was based mostly on Clark's short story, The Sentinel. Furrfu!
Slashdot Mirror
I say this, mind you, as an unpublished writer (Three novels finished but not sold, working on the fourth.) who also has a humor book in print through Xlibris. I don't call myself a published writer, because, of course, Xlibris is POD and even I don't count that as getting published.
Why do I care? It's the difference between doing things right, and doing them wrong. And, for that matter, what difference does it make to you what I think? If you like putting sites for baby pictures on a .com, go right ahead, I'm not stopping you. I may have an unflattering opinion of you, but I doubt that will stop you.
What I meant by "inappropriate" is that .com means commercial, and since my site is strictly a vanity site, .com wasn't the most appropriate tld for me. I could have taken .info, but my hosting company was charging the same for .us as for .com, so that seemed the most reasonable choice for me.
One thing I've been seeing lately is people using .com for the most frivolous reasons. As an example, I know a pair of yuppies who registered a domain just to host photos of their infant daughter instead of putting them on their own site. Naturally, they made it a .com even though .info would have been far more appropriate.
Exactly, and that's the main reason my vanity domain is .us not .com like all those twitiots out there. Granted, the .com version of my name was already in use (by a graphics design company, I think) but even if it weren't, I'd not have taken it because it's not appropriate.
Who needs that newfangled OS? I'm still happy with Win98 SE!
Just do what I do then: buy bits and pieces and assemble them into the computer you want instead of buying what some company decides is right for you. You don't even need to be a hardware guru to do this, just know one. That's what I do, I have a friend do all my hardware work because he's much better at it than I'd be. Build your own box and either move the hard drive over, clone it, or start off fresh with whatever OS you want.
That you are. And, unless I miss my guess, showing how long it's been since you took a good look at Linux. It now comes with drivers for most common peripherals, and almost every mainstream distro (except Gentoo, of course, but that's a special case) provides precompiled kernels. If you need to work with MS Office files, OpenOffice reads, edits and saves in that format if you need it to, and I've never had the slightest compatibility issues. Linux is much easier to work with now than it was ten years ago, and for somebody with your computer experience, it's more than ready for Prime Time. Again, I'm not saying you must or even should switch, just making sure you understand that it's a viable option now.
It's very easy: Passover comes on exactly the same dates every year in the Jewish Calendar. The Jewish and Gregorian calendars are different, so the date wanders around the Gregorian Calendar to a small extent while remaining fixed in the Jewish one.
That's not the point, nor is that claimed. What the article meant was that the cycle is that long, not that we'd still be using it when it starts repeating.
I gather from your post that you have nothing but contempt for anybody who you consider to be a fundamentalist. That's your privilege, of course. However, I see no reason for you to bring it into this discussion of the mathematical calculations behind determining the date of a religious holiday celebrated around the world by millions of people, few of whom could possibly be considered fundamentalists.
Why? That means buying a new computer whether you need it or not. Why not just move over to Linux? That way you can use your existing computer. Not only that, Linux isn't as resource intensive as Windows (especially Windows iCandy) so you'll find your current box working faster than ever. Not saying you must chose Linux, or that you'd be stupid not to, just asking why you don't consider it a viable option.
Nice operating systems don't go down.
No, that's not what happened. What did happen is that the US became a party to The Berne Convention, which specifies a minimum term for a copyright of the life of the creator plus 50 years. I won't say that various corporations aren't happy with this, but the idea has been part of copyright law in Europe for over a century.
Not everybody maximizes every window, you know. The idea is to have several different programs open and be able to see all of them without minimizing or moving any of them. HTH, HAND.
I did tech support for about four months once, for a small company. From what I could tell, I was the only person in that company who bothered customizing my Win2K desktop, instead of just looking at the default wallpaper day in and day out. There really are a lot of people, some of them skilled computer users, who just take whatever comes out of the box and let it go at that.
Me, I'd rather keep telling the stupid computer that I want to reboot later. That way I only have to do it once and get rid of all that cruft at the same time. Of course, if you really like watching it reboot, you can do it your way. Whatever floats your boat.
I haven't done that, but I used to do something much worse. At one point, for my sins, I served time on the helldesk of an ISP. Every now and then I'd make a note of the email address of a foul-mouthed, abusive caller who really didn't deserve the good service i tried to give everybody. For the next several weeks I'd have fun signing them up for mailing lists, newsletters and using their name on those stupid webforms that want your email address even though they have no legitimate use for it.
So, just have the reply address be foo@donotreply.company.com and have your incoming mailswerver send all mail addressed to that subdomain to /dev/null.
It's a bit off-topic, but a friend of mine pointed out that as all of the Bermuda Triangle is inside the Bermuda Triangle, shouldn't it make itself vanish?
That would be true if there were enough competition in the OS market for Microsoft to be concerned about it. For most people, if you have a PC, you use Windows because that's all that's available. It's not that they wouldn't know how to install Linux, or are afraid to try something new, they're not even aware of it. And, as long as that's true, Microsoft won't care about pissing off their customers because for all practical purposes they have a monopoly.
And again you put words into my mouth. I won't support it, I don't like it, but I don't oppose it. In general, I simply do my best to ignore it.
I don't know about Ubuntu, as I've never used it. I do, however, know that it works just fine on Fedora, and why. On Fedora, the updater only selects the packages you need for the software (including drivers) you have installed, and installs them one-by-one. If one doesn't work, it goes on to the next, and lets you know at the end what issues it had. I'm only guessing, of course, but the new SP1 for Windows iCandy may well be a monolithic block that's shoved in "all or nothing" fashion, and if any part of it can't go, the whole process aborts. It's just a guess, of course, but it would explain why there's so many problems reported.
No, I stated my unwillingness to support an organization that claims to support the civil liberties of American citizens, but only does so in practice when it supports their agenda. There have been many cases, such as Nativity scenes at Christmas, where they've helped anti-religious minorities force their opinions on the majority and, in general, I almost always think they're on the wrong side. It's a shame, really, because in earlier years they did such good work. The Second Amendment is only one of the many reasons I won't support them, regardless of your insulting manor and attempts to put words into my mouth. I can only guess that you are so close-minded that you think that everybody who doesn't agree exactly with you must be stupid, insane or evil, if not all three. Frankly, discussing this with you is a waste of my time because you're responding to what you wanted me to say, not what I did.
I find that hard to believe, seeing that I read it in the early '60s. The book Ninteen Eighty-Four was published in 1949 (The year I was born, BTW.) and the first feature film in 1956.
I know; I was simplifying. The movie came out first, and Sir Arthur made sure that the book followed the script as shot, making it, in effect, a novelization.
It's such a shame, isn't it, that they can't get things right in these articles, even when the slightest research would have shown the writer that the novel Space Odyssey was written as a novelization of the classic movie. The movie itself was based mostly on Clark's short story, The Sentinel. Furrfu!