|
Post by Chesapeake on Apr 22, 2019 20:25:17 GMT -5
As I approach it, even having done nothing more than "publishing" a blog for the past decade, the process tires me so, I have my doubts that I'll carry through. Editing my own writing seems like an almost impossible task. I've taken stabs at it from time to time (this isn't the first time doing this has occurred to me). From the distance of time that allows a more objective look, I no longer remember specifically why I might have approached a subject the way I did. Images are at least as vexing. Numbers baffle me. When I think it's enough to know image size and resolution, I'm confronted with file size and color codes. And the software for layout is frustrating as all get-out. It's more intuitive than it used to be, but if you've even used the Google blog creator, you'll know that copy written on something else will carry code with it that is darn near impossible to remove without going html and playing code sleuth. I hope you persist. You have a rare talent.
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Apr 22, 2019 15:31:07 GMT -5
Never met the gent, but I deeply admire his song, esp. as performed by the Country Gentlemen.
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Apr 22, 2019 13:20:57 GMT -5
Oil, John. You forgot the oil.
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Apr 22, 2019 13:19:38 GMT -5
When I was working on my Earhart book I farmed out the design and production stuff, so I can't be of much help.
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Apr 22, 2019 10:57:32 GMT -5
I just had another idea. How about selling framed copies of some shorter pieces, using an inkjet printer on textured, heavy rag-content paper, for a hand-made look. With autographs, of course.
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Apr 22, 2019 10:48:02 GMT -5
I don't know much about self-publishing, but I know it works for a lot of people, depending on their purpose and expectations. It's obviously a heavy lift if people want to make a real impression in the commercial publishing world, since writers have to do their own promotion work, on top of paying the production costs themselves. That would include basics like sending out review copies to multiple reviewers all over the country, and not expecting too much back, since professional reviewers tend to pass over books they receive over-the-transom from previously unpublished authors, as opposed to agents or commercial publishing houses.
However, if for example you're looking for something you can sell along with your pottery at craft shows, and if you can get the cost down, self publishing could be ideal. I once was hired to write and produce a book for a woman who was planning to recreate Amelia Earhart's last flight, only this time with a happier ending. She had some money from her main sponsor, Pratt & Whitney, to pay me for writing, editing and producing the book - which I did with the help of a National Geographic book division cohort who took care of the design and production. We turned out a handsome book ("No Limits: A Woman Aviator's Search for the Real Amelia Earhart, by Linda Finch With Donald Smith)" and it sold like hotcakes on her national tour to raise more funds for the flight.
As noted above, self-publishing costs vary, but tend to run pretty high. To really get the costs down, I would seriously consider for market-testing looking into Staples's binding services. You could produce your own spiral-bound book that would look very nice lying on a table at your booth, for sale at a price that would make it an attractive add-on to the purchase of some pots.
While we're on the subject, as you're working on your self-publishing deal, I would get some pieces together for submission to a few small regional literary magazines. That's a good way to really get attention from commercial publishers (and agents) looking for the kind of literary writing you do so well.
I think you have an inspired idea. Good luck!
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Apr 21, 2019 17:15:02 GMT -5
I saw that.
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Apr 21, 2019 16:13:14 GMT -5
As stimulating as this discussion is, I need to get back to work. I think I've made my points.
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Apr 21, 2019 15:53:19 GMT -5
In short: Trump needs to let us know he is on the job, actively dealing with foreign adversaries, including Russia. How would he do that? Like every other president does it: say something.
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Apr 21, 2019 15:37:21 GMT -5
First, you seem to think I am shilling for the Democratic party. As c. nine years' worth of posts on this forum should show, I am anything but a shill for the Democratic party. Second, doesn't it strike you as even a little bit strange that, given one of the Mueller report's basic - and as far as I know unchallenged - conclusions, that the Russian government did try to influence the 2016 election (as extensively documented in the report as well as the indictments of numerous individual Russians, including Kremlin intelligence officers), we have not heard one word - nary one peep - from our president on this subject? Much less any indication of interest in trying to make sure this kind of assault on the most basic institution of our democratic republic, the ballot box, doesn't happen again? WHAT THE FUCK??? That is a serious question, and I'd like to know your answer, beyond the old "Well, look at what the Democrats did." From what I gleaned, the Russians tried to influence the election but didn't have any luck at changing or influencing votes. They tried to get into the Trump campaign but got nothing. They paid the CLintons and in return got paid by the Clintons but nothing happened electorally. If their social media campaign had any effects at all they were minimal and we can't control that anyway. The states are responsible for their election systems and although one was supposedly accessed, no votes were changed. What would you have Trump say or do? He has said we have to protect our elections but I doubt he, or you, have a plan for how to do it. I don't know what the CIA may be doing but I'm not entitled to know what the CIA is doing and neither are you. We don't know that they didn't change any votes, or if so, how many, do we? I'm not aware of any study that makes any such conclusions one way or the other. What I would have Trump do or say is, make cyberwarfare a central element of the U.S. defense program, and rally public support for countermeasures. Oh, and call out the Russian Federation for what every other responsible person in the U.S. defense establishment believes, that Russia is one of our top strategic threats. I gather you trust/hope the CIA is doing something about this. That would be the same CIA that Trump has publicly disparaged and vilified, and told it needs to go back to school - along with the heads of all the other intelligence agencies? In short: Trump needs to let us know he is on the job, actively dealing with foreign adversaries, including Russia. Let's pretend it's page 7. I recently watched Rommel, a 2012 German-language film that dealt with the relationship between Hitler and the battle-hardened professional soldiers in the high command of the Bundeswehr, and their eyeball-rolling astonishment over the Fuehrer's wacka-doodle military ideas, which he regularly told them were smarter than theirs. PLOTSPOILER: The Germans lost the war.
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Apr 21, 2019 13:26:46 GMT -5
I see no leadership on this issue from this president. This is why I have trouble believing any of this. Everything comes down to some way to influence the public perception of the president. Every problem -- as was the case during the Bush years -- is analyzed as having its root in whether or not the president is doing it, causing it, responding properly to it. In contrast, we just lived through 2008-2016 with less than no fault-finding with the President. We have to believe that every problem -- every international incident, every natural disaster, every technological advancement or risk -- and the solution for all of them, lies in one Republican man's (because the Democratic Presidents are never held into account)actions. If only we had a Democratic president again. I miss Utopia. Except it was the Democratic President Obama who allowed -- (since, if they were consistent the press should blame the sitting president for all that goes wrong) -- the Russians to hack our election in the first place. Yet, somehow they are STILL finding some convoluted way to blame it on a Republican president. First, you seem to think I am shilling for the Democratic party. As c. nine years' worth of posts on this forum should show, I am anything but a shill for the Democratic party. Second, doesn't it strike you as even a little bit strange that, given one of the Mueller report's basic - and as far as I know unchallenged - conclusions, that the Russian government did try to influence the 2016 election (as extensively documented in the report as well as the indictments of numerous individual Russians, including Kremlin intelligence officers), we have not heard one word - nary one peep - from our president on this subject? Much less any indication of interest in trying to make sure this kind of assault on the most basic institution of our democratic republic, the ballot box, doesn't happen again? WHAT THE FUCK??? That is a serious question, and I'd like to know your answer, beyond the old "Well, look at what the Democrats did."
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Apr 20, 2019 21:44:16 GMT -5
Cyberspace is a completely lawless realm, as Bruce lays it out. That has some good sides in terms of free speech and promoting egalitarianism. But the bad sides of having a system of instant global communications free of any regulation whatsoever, and with most of its moving parts invisible anyway, are very, very bad. I see the 2016 election-meddling episode as the tip of a big, ugly iceberg, or a little finger exercise by the Russians demonstrating how seriously they can mess with us just by using one tiny part of what I presume are their capabilities in this area.
I see no leadership on this issue from this president. For all I know he is clueless about what's involved, or he just doesn't care because he's busy worrying about other things, like staying out of jail if he can't outrun certain statutes of limitations. Or he's still worried about some piece of kompromat that may be locked away in some desk drawer in the Kremlin. Whatever the case, to my knowledge, the threat from cyperspace is just not on his screen.
So, lacking any help from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Congress needs to get on the ball with oversight hearings to see if our side needs a little kick in the butt. The Pentagon does have an ongoing program devoted to cyberwarfare. Maybe it needs a little kick in the butt - I don't know. But maybe the media need to put this issue more prominently on the national screen.
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Apr 20, 2019 15:56:03 GMT -5
I don't watch or read as much news as some here, but I'm wondering what kind of response there will be to the findings about Russian interference in our election. It seems to me that there should be major countermeasures of the same sort, i.e., we should cyberattack them in a memorable way. Is anyone discussing this? Or are we just going to say tsk, tsk? I think you put your finger squarely on the right question. The fundamental job of Congress (other than to pass appropriations bills) is to oversee how current laws are working, and decide when new ones are needed. Do we need new laws to govern our response to cyber attacks? I dunno. If there've been any hearings on the subject during the Trump administration, I haven't heard about it. Now that Mueller has laid out chapter and verse about how the Russians sought to influence the 2016 election - at least as far as the authors could determine, let's get going on this before it happens all over again. By the way, the U.S. military's planning for such attacks has been covered in the media, and it sounds like we've developed some pretty devastating responses. It would be interesting to hear from this administration in a hearing setting if they ever would consider using them against Putin.
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Apr 20, 2019 12:25:34 GMT -5
Resolved: Cyndy deserves to have a great birthday.
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Apr 19, 2019 19:04:12 GMT -5
Fantastic! Star material for sure.
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Apr 19, 2019 18:03:37 GMT -5
I can't vote because there's no category for "Mmmmmmmmmmmaybe."
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Apr 18, 2019 16:48:50 GMT -5
I once showed up for a grandparents day to see what they were teaching my 4th-grader granddaughter, and had the bewildering experience of sitting in on a class where they were teaching "new math," whatever that is. They lost me in the first two minutes. Remember, Don, that young brains are thirsty sponges, while yours was already quite full. Leaving aside the question of what it's full of.
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Apr 18, 2019 16:19:06 GMT -5
I once showed up for a grandparents day to see what they were teaching my 4th-grader granddaughter, and had the bewildering experience of sitting in on a class where they were teaching "new math," whatever that is. They lost me in the first two minutes.
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Apr 16, 2019 19:36:44 GMT -5
This NYT piece answers some of the questions I have. They'll be debating this one for a while.
Notre-Dame Attic Was Known as ‘the Forest.’ And It Burned Like One. “Everyone knew that the attic was the most fragile part.”
NYT - April 16, 2019
PARIS — Inside the cavernous cathedral of Notre-Dame in Paris, the last Mass of the day was underway on Monday of Holy Week when the first fire alarm went off. It was 6:20 p.m., 25 minutes before the heavy wooden doors were scheduled to close to visitors for the day.
Worshipers, sightseers and staff were ushered out, and someone went up to check the most vulnerable part of the medieval structure — the attic, a lattice of ancient wooden beams known as “the forest” — but no fire was found, Rémy Heitz, the Paris prosecutor, said on Tuesday.
At 6:43 p.m., another alarm rang. It was just 23 minutes later, but when they returned to the attic, it was clear they had a major problem: It was on fire. Soon much of the roof and the delicate spire rising high above it were also engulfed in flames, fanned by a strong breeze.
Exactly how the fire broke out is now the subject of an intensive investigation by the French authorities, who are so far treating the disaster as an accident.
How the Notre-Dame Cathedral Fire Spread Imagery shows how the fire tore through the cathedral’s wooden roof and toppled its 300-foot spire.
Much remains to be learned. But already it is emerging that Notre-Dame, irreplaceable as it is to France’s heritage, lacked the fundamental fire-prevention safeguards that are required in more modern structures and have been grafted onto other ancient cathedrals elsewhere in Europe.
Some of those elements, like firewalls or a sprinkler system, were absent by choice — so as not to alter the landmark’s design or to introduce electrical wiring deemed a greater risk amid the timbers that supported Notre-Dame’s ornate lead roof.
“There had been a systematic refusal to install anything electrical” within “the forest” because of the risk, said Pierre Housieaux, president of the Paris Historical Association. “Everyone knew that the attic was the most fragile part.”
Inevitably, some of those decisions are being called into question in the aftermath of a calamity that scarred a jewel of Gothic architecture precious to all the world, and left a gaping wound in the heart of Paris.
“The fire-detection system existed, not the fire compartments,” said Jacques Chanut, president of the French Building Federation, referring to the structures commonly used elsewhere to contain blazes. “That’s the typical example of something we are going to have to think about tomorrow.”
However it began, the fire galloped unimpeded across the attic and roof, and up the wood structure inside the spire. The flaming spire stood out over the city like a Roman candle until it toppled over, crashing through the ceiling and into the cathedral.
As flaming pieces of the upper structure fell to the cathedral floor, some of the interior furnishings also caught fire.
Firefighters deployed a robot equipped with tank-type treads and a camera to pull hoses into the cathedral and aim water at the flames. Firefighters also used aerial drones to get a view, including thermal imaging, into the inferno.
But in the absence of fire-prevention measures at the cathedral, there was only so much the firefighters could do.
“The lack of fire security allowed the fire to spread quickly,” said Jean-Michel Leniaud, the former director of the École Nationale des Chartes a French university institute that specializes in the sciences supporting historical work. “If there were sprinklers everywhere it might have been different, but there weren’t.”
Mr. Leniaud, who visited the interior of Notre-Dame on Tuesday, said the state, which owns and maintains the cathedral, had fire safety regulations for all buildings, but that “sometimes they can be hard to apply.”
As the fire raged, firefighters assembled hoses by the Seine on Monday.CreditStephane De Sakutin/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images Paradoxically, that can be especially so for some of its most cherished structures. “There’s always been a hesitation to disfigure the monument in question,” Mr. Leniaud said.
One reason the fire swept through the open space beneath the roof is that there were no barriers — sometimes called firewalls — to compartmentalize the blaze until firefighters could arrive, said Jim Lygate, a visiting professor of fire investigation at University of Edinburgh. For that reason, he said, such barriers are legally required in similar structures in Britain.
That is not to say that Paris’s firefighters were unprepared for potential calamity. Scores of them drilled regularly for just such an emergency at Notre-Dame. That proved critical to saving many of its treasures.
“We don’t act without planning,” said Gabriel Plus, a spokesman for the Paris fire brigade. “We know the cathedral. So we know what to do when something like that happens, we know, for instance, that we need to deploy boats on the Seine really quickly to pump large amounts of water.”
About 500 firefighters responded, some of them unfurling hoses and training them on the blaze. About 100 focused on saving its religious and cultural treasures, Mr. Plus said.
“Once we realized that the roof would be partially lost, we aimed to stop the fire at the two towers, in order to limit the damage,” he said.
Laurent Nuñez, France’s junior interior minister, said about 20 firefighters had risked their lives by entering the towers to battle the fire, “which enabled the building to be saved.”
“For 15 minutes, half an hour, it could have gone either way,” he said.
The danger of a disastrous fire among the attic timbers was well known.
“At the cathedral, we have fire monitors,” Msgr. Patrick Chauvet, rector of the cathedral, told the radio station France Inter on Tuesday. “Three times a day they go up, under the wooden roof, to make an assessment.”
Notre-Dame had an on-site firefighter, posted daily at a command post on the floor of the structure, and a security agent, said André Finot, a spokesman for the cathedral. In case of an alarm, the firefighter would dispatch the security agent to the area where it rang.
Paris firefighters held two training exercises at Notre-Dame last year, focused on saving the relics and works of art, Mr. Plus said.
Lt.-Col. José Vaz de Matos, an official who works on inspecting France’s national monuments, said, “a good number of priceless collections were saved and brought to safety.” But large items, “some of which have been affected by the fire,” remained inside, he said.
Before the blaze, restoration work had begun and much of the building was sheathed in scaffolding, which was still being erected. Julien Le Bras, the chief executive of Le Bras Frères, the company that handles the cathedral’s scaffolding, told reporters that 12 employees worked on the site, but that none were there when the fire started.
Experts say that restoration, which often involves combustible chemicals and electrical tools, always presents a fire danger, as does electrical wiring.
The cathedral, battered but standing, at sunrise on Tuesday.CreditKamil Zihnioglu/Associated Press Mr. Housieaux, the Paris Historical Association president, noted that in the last decade, fires linked to restoration work had destroyed the town hall of La Rochelle, and the Hotel Lambert on the Île Saint-Louis, one of the small islands in the Seine in Paris.
The Notre-Dame restoration project was to focus on reinforcing the spire and repairing some of the attic beams, said Olivier de Chalus, a construction engineer and volunteer guide at the cathedral. He described the structure under the roof as “the cathedral’s jewel, the true piece of art that wasn’t accessible to many.”
But experts say the beams, many of them dating to the cathedral’s construction in the 12th and 13th centuries, became tinder-dry as they aged.
Experts will analyze the building to gauge the risk of collapse, officials said. Stabilizing it is likely to involve removing the damaged scaffolds, erecting new ones, and taking steps to protect the mortar between stones, which may have been weakened by the fire, from eroding when it rains.
Mr. Nuñez, the junior interior minister, said that while “overall the structure is holding,” inspectors had identified “vulnerabilities” in the arched ceiling and in a gable of the northern transept. He said that five apartment buildings on Rue du Cloître, which runs along the cathedral’s northern edge, had been evacuated for 48 hours as a precaution.
Mr. Heitz said that nearly 50 investigators were working on finding the cause of the fire, but he warned that the inquiry will be long and complex. So far, he said, the hypothesis is that it was an accident.
“Nothing at this stage suggests a voluntary act,” he said.
Liz Alderman, Elian Peltier and Aurelien Breeden reported from Paris, and Richard Pérez-Peña from London. Adam Nossiter contributed reporting from Paris, and James Glanz from New York.
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Apr 16, 2019 15:35:48 GMT -5
Mesmerizing!
|
|