Try comparing the boot times of a Windows system that doesn't have MS Office and a similar system with MS Office. With current hardware and versions of MS Office, I usually see about five seconds of extra lag during boot. If you have the OpenOffice quickstarter loading, that extra five seconds is visible to the user as it loads after the user has signed in. If you don't use the quickstarter, then you see it when you first load OpenOffice manually, as you say.
KOffice, in my experience, loads significantly faster than either MS Office or OpenOffice, and doesn't impact boot time. On the other hand, its support for ODF and the way it treats text styles are practically the definition of suck. I have very high hopes for 2.0, though, and will certainly give it a shot when it's available.
Yeah, this one isn't mudslinging. This one is George Allen being himself, on camera, without any doctoring whatsoever.
A classic example of real mudslinging would be the Willie Horton ad; it insulted Bush Sr.'s opponent, played off racist fears (without using any overt racism), and took an explicitly biased stance against Michael Dukakis. That's mudslinging.
This was just a politician hanging his own political career in front of millions.
Oh, this is "rich". OK, let's address this tired liberal mantra. First of all, the 2005 tax cuts INCREASED the percentage of tax revenues paid by the top 1%, top 5%, top 20% and top 50% of the taxpayers.
But not the actual dollar amount. Let's say you cut taxes by 10% for everyone who makes more than $300,000, and 15% for everyone who makes less. You'll come out with the $300,000+ earners paying a larger percentage of what's left, but they still got a tax cut, not a tax hike. This is really, really basic math, and you either already know this and are being intentionally disingenuous, or you need to hit the books.
It REDUCED the percentage paid by the bottom 50%.
Of course it did. If everyone's paying less, but the bottom 50% got a bigger cut, then the top 50% pay a larger percentage of what's left. Doesn't mean they didn't get a huge ol' tax cut. And I guarantee you, their buying power ("Oh boy, I can get another Lexus!") increased more than my buying power ("Oh boy, I can get another sandwich!") with Bush's cuts.
And, in terms of percentage cuts, it most favored the lower rung taxpayers because the increased child tax credits (what's a measly $1000 to a millionaire?) disproportionately benefited the "poor". Second of all, the top 50% of taxpayers pay over 94% of ALL TAXES.
And that would be because they make a hell of a lot more money than you or me.
So, here's a little riddle for you.... is it possible to give a tax cut to PEOPLE WHO DON'T PAY TAXES? You can't give a tax cut to the poor in this country because they don't pay taxes (well, not federal taxes anyhow - the states and towns still get 'em). By definition, then, all tax cuts are "for the rich", since they pay almost all the taxes.
I'm sorry, but that's bullshit. You pay payroll taxes and 10% income tax even if you only make $7,500 a year. And that's poor.
No, I'm pretty sure I meant what I said. Look at the web pages of just about any fiction market, and you'll see what editors prefer: 1 inch margins on 8.5x11 paper, double-spaced, and preferably with a Courier font. Of course that's not the layout the final product is going to be in; that will be determined by the medium the story will be printed in. But it's the format the editors want so they don't go blind reading a gazillion stories a day.
Want a guaranteed method the editor will skip yours? Send them a story on non-standard paper, with wacky fonts. Heck, you might as well use pink printer ink and cover it with sparkles.
Have you even looked at a modern word-processor? They do all that by default, now. A professional writer wants to be able to open a manuscript, write in the manuscript, and then print that manuscript. If it requires more work than using a typewriter to get a page layout that editors like, why in the world should a writer use it?
As I mentioned on an earlier Google Office thread, the word processor doesn't permit the kind of page formatting options that are an absolute necessity for a professional writer. Specifically, you can't define front-page headers, subsequent headers, or 8.5x11 inch page sizes with 1 inch margins.
Without those features, it's still OK, but no writer will use it as their word processor of choice.
As a writer, I have well-formatted documents I use in OpenOffice. They are 8.5x11 inches, with 1 inch margins, and headers on every page. The body text is double-spaced, while the front-page manuscript headers are single-spaced.
I lost ALL of that formatting with the test upload of a document. For writers who need properly formatted manuscripts, this is definitely a no-go. I'll have to wait until they can do proper headers and page layouts.
If this works (I'll need to test it to know for sure, obviously), why aren't Linux distros already doing this, especially the ones that include Flash by default?
I don't see why I should bother with Windows at this point. The Windows versions I currently have are sufficient for anything I actually need Microsoft software for, and for eye candy Vista can't hold a candle to XGL. Especially at these price points, I'm having trouble justifying even considering purchasing another version of Windows.
The folks over at Macromedia (and now Adobe) haven't released a real version of Flash for years. Until Flash is able to play consistently - and without video/audio sync problems - it's not going to be a viable solution on Linux. Right now it's a toy and an advertisement distribution system. They promised us a version 8 for Linux, and now it looks like version 10 for Windows will ship before we get it.
I hate the way dragging a To Do to your calendar actually removes it from your To Do list. It should copy it as a new calendar entry, which can then be manipulated as you see fit without changing the original To Do.
How is it news that the Republicans also astroturf?
Might it be because the callers you're talking about identify themselves as either members of the Democratic party or employees of a 527? And that those calls are not astroturfing?
Lulu is a great service, but I can tell you why it doesn't have a higher profile: The material being produced isn't particularly purchase-worthy, especially in the case of fiction.
publishing on demand certainly does not gaurantee quality, but the traditional model does not do so either. i've payed for and read plenty of books that were horrid. i wonder how many really great books never saw the light of day because the traditional model missed them.
I will say I agree that the model's not perfect. An editor can end up dismissing a great story for any number of bad reasons, including the editor's mood that day. And I certainly hope that if a story really is good, but maligned by publishing houses, then the writer will take advantage of POD services like lulu to get it printed and sold anyway.
But like I've said elsewhere, the vast majority of vanity publishing projects are truly, painfully bad. I'm sure the good/bad ratio is still, unfortunately, worse than that of established publishing houses.
I disagree. I'm an avid reader, and never lack for quality material. Sure, the publishing houses produce a lot of crap, too, but unlike MTV there are a lot of choices. Don't like what Tor puts out? Baen has a huge line-up of talent. Don't like any of them, either? Take a browse through Random House's catalog. Prefer smaller, less mainstream stuff? Try out Small Beer Press, publishers of the extremely good 'zine "Lady Churchill's Rosebud Wristlet." Or Wheatland Press. Or... See what I mean? There's a ton of variety out there, and it's not all 'formulaic.' In fact, the single largest complaint I hear from editors is that so much of the slush they have to dig through is formulaic, and gets discarded immediately. The tragedy of POD is that there's no one to tell you, "No, this is just a rehashed Buffy the Vampire Slayer fan-fic with the names changed, and is not of publishable quality."
I'd say the readable stuff -- as in, stuff I personally would consider readable -- coming from the genre publishing houses I like numbers in the 40% range. A lot of that is stuff I still wouldn't choose to read, but it wouldn't specifically offend my eyes, either.
The POD outfits, however, are batting 0. I have never picked up any piece of fiction from one that's been worth reading. The vast majority of it is on par with the Buffy fan-fics I mentioned. A lot of it is the utterly original and unique story of a halfling, an elf, a dwarf, and a mysterious hero on a quest involving an ancient, magic ring.
I know -- or at least, I've heard -- that there are gems that pop up sometimes. But I'm simply not willing to dig through all the steaming piles of... er... manuscripts I'd need to in order to get to them.
That's what the editors at publishing houses, great and small, are for. And frankly I appreciate all their hard work.
Incidentally, I know MTV has editors, too. But they're basically a monopoly unless you know where to go to find good music videos. (Hint: Not television!) And they have a built-in bias toward anything that will sell more Coke advertisements. With professionally edited and published fiction, you have an astonishing range of choices. With MTV you have, well, MTV. And, I suppose VH1. Oh boy, VH1.
I'm afraid you don't get to call yourself a professional writer unless you've actually made a profession out of it. Unpublished hacks who call themselves professional writers deserve what they get -- not a whole lot.
All very good points. However, the large publishing houses will, in that scenario, continue to have a monopoly on wide distribution and popularity, because they've got something the vanity publishing houses usually don't: A stable of very experienced (and bloodthirsty) editors.
The technology exists, obviously, to produce very professional-looking books on demand. But the same can't be said for producing professionally-edited material.
"Towboat Terrorist." I really feel sorry for whatever synapse misfired badly enough to produce that title.
I hate to bag on POD, I really do, because the concept is wonderful. But in many ways, it suffers from the same problem as the internet itself; anyone can say anything, so... anyone will say anything.
The people who go to vanity publishers usually do so because their work isn't good enough for the professional publishing houses. I'm not saying that to injure egos, I'm saying it because it's true. Self-publishing -- that is, publishing your own material as your own editor and paying all the costs of book production -- is almost always an exercise in futility, because writers need editors.
Of course, it's not an absolute, and I think it would be really great if more top-notch talent, like Cory Doctorow, used the internet to get out from behind the publishing houses.
Slashdot Mirror
Try comparing the boot times of a Windows system that doesn't have MS Office and a similar system with MS Office. With current hardware and versions of MS Office, I usually see about five seconds of extra lag during boot. If you have the OpenOffice quickstarter loading, that extra five seconds is visible to the user as it loads after the user has signed in. If you don't use the quickstarter, then you see it when you first load OpenOffice manually, as you say.
KOffice, in my experience, loads significantly faster than either MS Office or OpenOffice, and doesn't impact boot time. On the other hand, its support for ODF and the way it treats text styles are practically the definition of suck. I have very high hopes for 2.0, though, and will certainly give it a shot when it's available.
Yeah, this one isn't mudslinging. This one is George Allen being himself, on camera, without any doctoring whatsoever.
A classic example of real mudslinging would be the Willie Horton ad; it insulted Bush Sr.'s opponent, played off racist fears (without using any overt racism), and took an explicitly biased stance against Michael Dukakis. That's mudslinging.
This was just a politician hanging his own political career in front of millions.
No, I'm pretty sure I meant what I said. Look at the web pages of just about any fiction market, and you'll see what editors prefer: 1 inch margins on 8.5x11 paper, double-spaced, and preferably with a Courier font. Of course that's not the layout the final product is going to be in; that will be determined by the medium the story will be printed in. But it's the format the editors want so they don't go blind reading a gazillion stories a day.
Want a guaranteed method the editor will skip yours? Send them a story on non-standard paper, with wacky fonts. Heck, you might as well use pink printer ink and cover it with sparkles.
Have you even looked at a modern word-processor? They do all that by default, now. A professional writer wants to be able to open a manuscript, write in the manuscript, and then print that manuscript. If it requires more work than using a typewriter to get a page layout that editors like, why in the world should a writer use it?
I'm not actually against that as a sort of emergency backup.
And will I get to Google the beans?
As I mentioned on an earlier Google Office thread, the word processor doesn't permit the kind of page formatting options that are an absolute necessity for a professional writer. Specifically, you can't define front-page headers, subsequent headers, or 8.5x11 inch page sizes with 1 inch margins.
Without those features, it's still OK, but no writer will use it as their word processor of choice.
As a writer, I have well-formatted documents I use in OpenOffice. They are 8.5x11 inches, with 1 inch margins, and headers on every page. The body text is double-spaced, while the front-page manuscript headers are single-spaced.
I lost ALL of that formatting with the test upload of a document. For writers who need properly formatted manuscripts, this is definitely a no-go. I'll have to wait until they can do proper headers and page layouts.
If this works (I'll need to test it to know for sure, obviously), why aren't Linux distros already doing this, especially the ones that include Flash by default?
FULL versions (all prices universal)
Linux Awesome Edition $Free
Linux Everywhere $Free
Linux Anywhere $Free
Penguins $Free (in Antarctica)
UPGRADE versions (all prices universal)
Linux Awesome Edition $Free
Linux Everywhere $Free
Linux Anywhere $Free
Penguins $Free (in Antarctica)
I don't see why I should bother with Windows at this point. The Windows versions I currently have are sufficient for anything I actually need Microsoft software for, and for eye candy Vista can't hold a candle to XGL. Especially at these price points, I'm having trouble justifying even considering purchasing another version of Windows.
The folks over at Macromedia (and now Adobe) haven't released a real version of Flash for years. Until Flash is able to play consistently - and without video/audio sync problems - it's not going to be a viable solution on Linux. Right now it's a toy and an advertisement distribution system. They promised us a version 8 for Linux, and now it looks like version 10 for Windows will ship before we get it.
I hate the way dragging a To Do to your calendar actually removes it from your To Do list. It should copy it as a new calendar entry, which can then be manipulated as you see fit without changing the original To Do.
Neither do the engineers, technicians, and line workers who build the hardware. The markup on software is a lot higher than the markup on hardware.
And for that, POD is great. For science fiction and fantasy, POD isn't very great. In fact, it's rather the opposite of great.
Oh my god... I laughed, I cried. Mostly, I cried.
Lulu is a great service, but I can tell you why it doesn't have a higher profile: The material being produced isn't particularly purchase-worthy, especially in the case of fiction.
I will say I agree that the model's not perfect. An editor can end up dismissing a great story for any number of bad reasons, including the editor's mood that day. And I certainly hope that if a story really is good, but maligned by publishing houses, then the writer will take advantage of POD services like lulu to get it printed and sold anyway.
But like I've said elsewhere, the vast majority of vanity publishing projects are truly, painfully bad. I'm sure the good/bad ratio is still, unfortunately, worse than that of established publishing houses.
I disagree. I'm an avid reader, and never lack for quality material. Sure, the publishing houses produce a lot of crap, too, but unlike MTV there are a lot of choices. Don't like what Tor puts out? Baen has a huge line-up of talent. Don't like any of them, either? Take a browse through Random House's catalog. Prefer smaller, less mainstream stuff? Try out Small Beer Press, publishers of the extremely good 'zine "Lady Churchill's Rosebud Wristlet." Or Wheatland Press. Or... See what I mean? There's a ton of variety out there, and it's not all 'formulaic.' In fact, the single largest complaint I hear from editors is that so much of the slush they have to dig through is formulaic, and gets discarded immediately. The tragedy of POD is that there's no one to tell you, "No, this is just a rehashed Buffy the Vampire Slayer fan-fic with the names changed, and is not of publishable quality."
I'd say the readable stuff -- as in, stuff I personally would consider readable -- coming from the genre publishing houses I like numbers in the 40% range. A lot of that is stuff I still wouldn't choose to read, but it wouldn't specifically offend my eyes, either.
The POD outfits, however, are batting 0. I have never picked up any piece of fiction from one that's been worth reading. The vast majority of it is on par with the Buffy fan-fics I mentioned. A lot of it is the utterly original and unique story of a halfling, an elf, a dwarf, and a mysterious hero on a quest involving an ancient, magic ring.
I know -- or at least, I've heard -- that there are gems that pop up sometimes. But I'm simply not willing to dig through all the steaming piles of... er... manuscripts I'd need to in order to get to them.
That's what the editors at publishing houses, great and small, are for. And frankly I appreciate all their hard work.
Incidentally, I know MTV has editors, too. But they're basically a monopoly unless you know where to go to find good music videos. (Hint: Not television!) And they have a built-in bias toward anything that will sell more Coke advertisements. With professionally edited and published fiction, you have an astonishing range of choices. With MTV you have, well, MTV. And, I suppose VH1. Oh boy, VH1.
I'm afraid you don't get to call yourself a professional writer unless you've actually made a profession out of it. Unpublished hacks who call themselves professional writers deserve what they get -- not a whole lot.
All very good points. However, the large publishing houses will, in that scenario, continue to have a monopoly on wide distribution and popularity, because they've got something the vanity publishing houses usually don't: A stable of very experienced (and bloodthirsty) editors.
The technology exists, obviously, to produce very professional-looking books on demand. But the same can't be said for producing professionally-edited material.
A lot of them, especially the fly-by-night ones, require the writer to pay for a certain number of books first.
"Towboat Terrorist." I really feel sorry for whatever synapse misfired badly enough to produce that title.
I hate to bag on POD, I really do, because the concept is wonderful. But in many ways, it suffers from the same problem as the internet itself; anyone can say anything, so... anyone will say anything.
The people who go to vanity publishers usually do so because their work isn't good enough for the professional publishing houses. I'm not saying that to injure egos, I'm saying it because it's true. Self-publishing -- that is, publishing your own material as your own editor and paying all the costs of book production -- is almost always an exercise in futility, because writers need editors.
Of course, it's not an absolute, and I think it would be really great if more top-notch talent, like Cory Doctorow, used the internet to get out from behind the publishing houses.