Sorry, guys, but to me these seem like choices for people who are techies first and last and writers only incidentally. There are tools out there that were designed for writing complex documents *without* needing to bloody well learn tech skills. Personally, I'm quite fond of Quark CopyDesk, which was designed for professional writers who want to explicitly be able to block out formatting stuff and just focus on the words. Let's also remember some of the useful orphans out there like Nisus. These days you can get copies for ten or twenty bucks, including everything, and the feature set is rich as the dickens. Of course, I do most of my writing in TextEdit, which replaced BBedit for me, and do the rest in Indesign so YMMV.

I was going to foe you but then found that you posted anonymously. Funny how most neocons do. Not willing to be accountable for your actions, maybe?

I'm thinking nuclear power plants
Oh, I don't doubt that you are. Which right there shows that you have no idea of the real comparative costs of various possible energy sources. Howsabout this, you go and build (not plan, actually build and get operational) a standalone, pays its own bills, unsubsidized and safe facility built that will store any and all nuclear waste in a form where twenty randomly chosen engineers with relevant expertise agree that your storage means is safe for at least a thousand years, regardless of what happens to management of the facility or possible sabotage or theft and then we can *start* to discuss how you're planning to do "cost effective" nuclear power.

Fucking anti-intellectual, cowardly, petty ass, right wing, mumble, grumble...

Amazing how much disinformation there is out there on this one. So far I've only *occasionally* been able to track it back to oil companies. Do the research. The real primary reasons for increases in grain prices are massively increased Asian demand for meat, more and more crop blights (mostly from global warming and from agribusiness-caused problems), and ever heavier use of petroleum-derived fertilizers.
Yes, biofuels-destined crops have caused *some* of it, as well as boomtime increases in prices for some kinds of cropland. But even there we're talking about the kind of virgin sourced, feedstock inefficient approaches that nobody responsible in the biofuels community was ever recommending in the first place. The only reason that those crops were grown and used that way was that yet again the agribusiness companies like ConAgra and Archer-Daniels-Midland had undermined a social trend for their own short-term enrichment.

I must say, I've found this whole "biofuels caused the food price increases" meme impressively persistent and, if you look into it, one with a formidably fast rise time. Just kinda appeared out of nowhere in about a year and a half. Do the research, folks. Search on "grain crop blight" and things like that instead of terms that will just point you back to the disinfo.

I live four blocks from a car lot that is always filled with nothing but seventies and eighties BMWs and Mercedeses. There are quite a few of these in Portland and two that I know of in Eugene. Why? Because there are now companies that do nothing but buy up those old cars, clean them up, optimize them for biofuels, and resell them. There's even a company near me called (seriously) Lovecraft, that does just the conversions. They're busy all the time. (Should I say damned busy? Busy with tentacles on top?)

Yeah. I don't know about the rest of the country, but out here on the freaky west coast, diesel cars are already an everyday fact of life.

Coffee grounds are nowhere near rich enough in oils to make your scenario reasonable. For coffee to be worth more as fuel than as tasty beverage, fuel prices would need to reach, oh, fifteen dollars a gallon, while somehow production, processing, and shipping costs for coffee stayed constant. You might as well say that people will stop eating shitakes because they might become more valuable as compost.

Thanks for the linkage. But let's not forget that modern algal production means could be done just fine on rooftops and over spaces like parking lots. Not only is this, in that sense, utterly unused land, it would even protect what's there now from the elements. Not to mention that the people "working the farm" could walk to work from city center apartments.

No, many of us would rather live in 21st century Europe (but with more space and less regulation) than in 1970's America. Because that's what the previous poster's world would most resemble. Dude, hate to break it to ya (no, I don't) but *you're* the one living the clumsy, outdated lifestyle. As for costs, I'm guessing that you haven't done the math on cost/benefit here. Those of us who eat our daily serving of clue know better. I've got three words for you: Tyson's Corner redesign.

My. Your points are exactly the kinds of reasons that folks like me are trying to get intentional communities to regulatory parity with nuclear family-oriented lifestyles.

You're right, living the way that you do and disposing of your "waste" the way that you do, every little change is tiny gain trying to justify significant cost. But out here in Oregon more and more people are living illegally, getting by with less access to mortgages, violating fire codes, and so on to live five to twenty people to a household. But since regulations are designed to obstruct adding more bathrooms, they tend to have to share them even though they would gladly pay the cost of building in more. Since water regulations make it a crime to put their greywater on their gardens, they sneak it out a little at a time and never put in efficient dedicated greywater plumbing. Since putting a greenhouse on the lot would also be a tell of those illegal people, not to mention unfundable with a second mortgage shared by all those people, instead they build cheesy little ones out of scrap and grow a third of the food they could, using twice the space and adding almost no living space to the house. And on and on.

Why do I bring all this up? Because in a two or three person household, you're right, this kind of thing is all pain almost no gain. But the larger the household, the more practical it gets to either sort into more categories or perhaps even build a little homebrew-style setup and do the diesel separation right there. Yet again we see that the real barriers to living sustainably trace back to our corporate-backed, fifties originated, "nuclear family" lifestyles.

And you think that you're adding something useful to the conversation why, again?

I may yet keep my current cheesy phone and use the N810 *just* for stuff that I'll access over wifi. Or I may decide to dump the phone most times and use Skype and email software instead. That's exactly my point. If you think of this thread as being about the transfer of information instead of the semi-arbitrary categories of "phone", "smartphone", "pager", or "mobile net device" then things get quite nebulous. Look at the apps discussed here. Especially the Symbian ones. Who can use what for which tasks is a question with a non-obvious answer.

No. He's just aware of the special secret underwear supplier for commando teams.