not many people will pay good money for completely broken crap that doesn't work.
That's exactly what corporate people do all the time. Salespeople blitz into big corporation/government manager's offices and sell a bill of goods. The managers are hardly competent enough to know if anything is any good. Then later when staff complains the same salespeople are back to sell upgrades or consulting.
"Because when you are handicapped and you do something great it's not the great thing they talk about it's the being handicapped part. It's patronizing"
You have a point and I can't myself speak to that aspect. However, the rest of us can learn something from these stories, which is that you can overcome the odds and saying "I can't" is just an excuse. This woman would have had all kinds of excuses but she doesn't think that way. Like I said, something big to learn from that.
"While the anti-Americans world-wide are wagging their fingers at the US, China is killing itself with pollution" Of course fingers are wagged at the U.S. Isn't the U.S. responsible for every evil ever created, past, present and future?
As a former owner of a small studio back in the 90s I regret the loss of quality as reflected in poor playback conditions (ear buds, bad headphones etc.) and the ubiquity of MP3s (no they do not sound the same, and it's the difference between pretty good and superb). I recorded to 16 channels of analog tape with Dolby S, and it was fantastic quality sound.
The other side of this, though, is the easy availability of very good digital processing equipment. Now that the standard is 24 bit, there are no longer headroom problems and the noise floors are low. A studio like the one I had would be today largely superfluous, or at the least not very busy. (Good mics still cost, and, leaving aside possible questions of technique, that's where many home recordists seem to fall back in quality.) Music is easy to distribute.
So it's hardly all a black picture. The marketplace delivers what the market demands. Live with it.
This is the usual argument, which has two points. (1) There is (are) killer feature(s) in Word that Writer doesn't have. (2) I need Word compatibility.
As to item 1, I won't presume to tell you what features you need. If there is something in Word that Writer lacks, and you can't do your work without it, then your choice is made for you. (At times, of course, those important features either do really exist in Writer or are not truly mission critical, but I can't judge that for someone else.)
As to item 2, compatibility, that is a real issue in organizations that do any amount of exchanging documents outside of their own sphere of control. Writer compatibility has vastly improved, but I know there are issues and I know sending a PDF is not always an option (and you probably won't get the other party to switch to Writer).
That said, as a retiree (without an office to deal with, praise heaven), I go with LO at home because it runs on Linux and it has no cost. I do run into compatibility issues at times but I just live with them. It isn't worth a few hundred dollars and the unpleasant experience of working on a Windows system.
Yep, and I wonder what the prices would be if there were no Linux or BSDs, and people had to choose between MS, solaris, some other flavours of unix, OSX. Free software helps even those not adopting it.
That's a really good point. If MS had no competition at all just think what they could--- and would--- charge.
One thing we have today that's different is political correctness. That wasn't such a big thing during the peak of the arms race and the cold war.
I can see little possible good coming from the politicization of science. Nor can, frankly, I see much good in making science "politically correct."
Science should just be science, objective and dispassionate. The conclusions are whatever they are without regard to popularity.
This is not the politically correct answer. You are supposed to blame Sandy on global warming.
Mind you, that may be the scientifically correct answer too. I certainly don't have the background to make that judgment. And I am definitely not a global warming naysayer by any means.
But if you publish a study saying Sandy was due only to various things other than global warming, I think you're in politically dangerous territory, even if the study is an honest one.
Of course, this defines the problem. When science is politicized, no good comes of it.
I have been a Vine reviewer for several years, and I take great care with my reviews. I do sometimes review a technical book, but I make sure it is in an area in which I have sufficient expertise. While I'll review a book about audio engineering, I won't review one about, for instance, organic chemistry.
My reviews are not fake. I make every effort to give a fair evaluation. I write positive reviews and negative reviews (even though it's well known that a reviewer's ranking on Amazon goes down with negative reviews, as they are generally not well received by readers).
I don't know if I'm typical of Vine reviewers; the ones I've interacted with on the Vine forums seem about the same as me. Of course, there are bound to be bad apples in the group. In addition, Amazon has been making review requirements for Vine members ever more strict, and this undoubtedly has lead to decreased quality. But I do sincerely hope things are not quite as bad as portrayed here, or the program should indeed be discontinued.