"The Apple Tablet has been something of a holy grail for gadget fiends."
Seriously though - there's lots of reasons to be suspicious of the Apple Tablet - not the least of which is that it's not going to be a tablet Mac... it's going to be a large iPhone.
Which means - you're getting an ebook reader for $700. :)
@Alfisted: I'm pretty sure the tablet will exist. If Conde is going to make this move then Wired is the obvious choice. Of all Conde's titles, Wired readers are the most likely to buy the tablet as well as use new technologies in general. I'm not sure if it will work for Conde but starting with Wired makes the most sense. It's what I'd do.
This is a pet peeve of mine, so please forgive me.
It's TOE the line, not "tow". It does not refer to hauling a rope, it refers to a bunch of guys standing next to each other with their toes on a line. It's probably got a military origin.
@lostarchitect: Before I even checked the comments I was going to write, "Cue long debate about 'tow' vs. 'toe' the line."
For what it's worth I think your pet peeve is entirely unfounded. Having spent a fair amount of time looking - including consulting with a linguist, there doesn't appear to be a consensus either on the proper form of "tow/toe" or, even, the appropriate metaphor given either form.
I take the fact that your reply didn't even attempt to forward any support for your position (nor, really, does this) as yet more evidence.
@Lizard_King: Huh? You don't mind appearing stupid in public? You don't care that the web sites you visit are badly written? You're not offended that Ryan Tate, someone who is paid to write, can't use language correctly?
By the way, by the way you pair it with "Not a big deal", you should probably have used the outright "I couldn't care less" rather than the sarcastic "I could care less."
@skierpage: That is one of my pet peeves actually. "Couldn't care less" should be the correct use because if you could care less, it stands to reason that you really do care.
Although from what I've heard, the two are becoming colloquially synonymous.
@mark.hunter.ca: Hi Mark. Thanks for your comment. I don't really need support for my position because it is the correct one, and it is almost universally accepted as such. Your linguist is wrong if he says there is no consensus; there is. Google is your friend here, and since you need support:
@Lizard_King: Ugh, it is a big deal. If your not good at english, especially when your reader's depend on your use of language to communicate ideas, you risk appearing to be an idiot in there eyes.
@SkonOfVulcan: In terms of the original phrase you are technically incorrect, but functionally you are *sort of* correct. The original usage is "champing" (perhaps *you* should look in a dictionary?). "Chomp" is a modern variant on "champ", so it also makes sense, but the original is, in fact, "champing". [www.word-detective.com]
I have never been able to get around the name of this place: "a radiant light around the head" has never made me feel the least bit peckish. Also makes me think of lady nips; ditto.
are all the laid off folks invited too? If not I think they should all show up and press their faces against those "big windows looking out on 42nd street"
They have to keep up appearances, impress their sources, and, you know, all the other reasons why it's more important to throw a big, expensive party than save that $100k and keep the positions of two editorial assistants.
The Fairchild, Golf Digest, bridal, and digital groups can party in splendor at the McDonald's at 42nd and Broadway. There will be balloons! #condenast
With Drew Schutte, Conde has a smart, web-savvy guy running digital--finally. Let's hope that he, like Hearst, has a war chest. Let's also note that Conde Digital is not at 4TS and that, as surely as the luncheon seating plan, is a measure of status. #media
@LoveHandles: True. It's interesting that regular readers seldom realize the enormous effort that goes into producing complex articles like those in the New Yorker that flow, both on a logical and literal level, like liquid butter. The flow of the printed word is very different from the flow of the spoken word. Wordsmithing is way more difficult an art that most of us are aware of--but that's the point that the New Yorker illustrates so beautifully. You just read, and you're never aware of how much work it went into making writing come across so effortless on the page. #thenewyorker
@lionel-mandrake: what would you like to know? That I enjoy prose with blood in its veins? I like surprising story choices, not the utterly predictable kind? Yes, dear Mandrake, unreadable, to me, which obviously makes me a heathen to you. So be it. #thenewyorker
What is the ratio of writers to editors at other magazines? Is 2:1 a lot or the industry norm? (unless critics are considered writers as well, in which case it's 2.5 to 1).
And could someone, ANYONE, please explain to a non-journo what the difference is between a "copy staff" and an "editorial assistant"? #thenewyorker
@FormerEnglishMajor: Editorial assistants are half-grunt work editors, half-personal assistants. Copy staff does way more fact-checking and style-proofing. Editorial assistants get the Plexiglass-reflected glory of their overlord; the copy staff gets to not live in terror of serving cold coffee. And if they have seven years of experience and a master's, slightly more than minimum wage. #thenewyorker
@FormerEnglishMajor: "Editorial assistant" is the entry-level staff position at magazines. You often start as an intern, and if hired, join in as editorial assistant. You occasionally get to do some fluffy, blurby-type writing that runs in print, but your job is to assist more senior writers with research, fact-checking, etc. No smart person ever spends more than a year as an editorial assistant--it's a threshold position by definition. You either get promoted out of it or drop out.
Copy staff means copy editors. Their main responsibility is to ensure that the flow of the printed word is both grammatically correct and in accordance with the conventions of journalism.
They review copy for grammatical accuracy, spelling, flag things such as "widows," faulty word breaks, etc. etc. Occasionally they have some last-minute input in fact-checking, but in Magazineland, the bulk of fact-checking is usually done by the time copy gets to a copy editor. It's a pretty technical job, complex yet not creative, but very essential. It's a career-type job as opposed to a mere station to something else.
@Guggenheimlich: I disagree, based on my experience. Editorial assistants don't ever do any sort of editing work, ever--be it line-editing of copy-editing. They seldom write, for that matter. And I think you're confusing editorial assistants with personal assistants to the editor in chief. The latter are glorified secretaries.
@snugbug: Hugely. So that would mean the E.A.'s don't get paid much (one step above intern?) while the copy editors would - could they try to replace the latter with the former to cut costs or is that above an EA's pay grade...?
Big help. If I could heart you again, I would.
When you are not in publishing, the titles/duties are a complete mystery as to hierarchy, job content, etc. #thenewyorker
@FormerEnglishMajor: The EAs get paid next to nothing, copy staff gets paid...next to next to nothing. A lot of publications have drastically reduced copy staff in order to cut costs already, but I don't think the two jobs will be melded together - most EAs wouldn't be effective at it, it's not an easy task and it takes some real experience to be a good copy editor. Like a previous poster pointed out, EAs are transient by definition and they either move up or move on.
I have some friends that work at small publications that now have no copy staff and that farm out their editing to a separate service, but I'm not sure how common that is at bigger publications. I work for a website, and they expect me to copy edit my own stuff. Which, honestly, is next to impossible to do in any effective way. Having fresh eyes on a piece of writing is a big help. But as HamNo would say, this is how we live now: with tired eyes and grammatical errors. #thenewyorker
@snugbug: I bow to your wisdom. I should have disclaimed that these were wild guesses from someone barely with a foot in Bookland. So, then, what DO editorial assistants at magazines do? Just go to meetings and read submissions? #thenewyorker
@Guggenheimlich: In the classic pyramid scheme of a magazine masthead, EAs are pretty much gophers. The magazine world's equivalent of PAs (production assistants) in film and advertising. You do whatever needs to get done--from rounding up items for a photo shoot to harassing PR for shopping credits to fact-checking, etc. They do NOT go on coffee runs, though, and in that sense, differ from interns. I suppose you can say EAs are little balls of coiled promise, whose latent potential is recognized on the condition that they put in some unglamorous grunt work before they are afforded the privilege to write or edit things of any consequence. #thenewyorker
11/19/09
Seriously though - there's lots of reasons to be suspicious of the Apple Tablet - not the least of which is that it's not going to be a tablet Mac... it's going to be a large iPhone.
Which means - you're getting an ebook reader for $700. :)
11/18/09
Not sure why Conde Nast is staring with Wired, though.
11/19/09
11/18/09
It's TOE the line, not "tow". It does not refer to hauling a rope, it refers to a bunch of guys standing next to each other with their toes on a line. It's probably got a military origin.
11/18/09
11/18/09
For what it's worth I think your pet peeve is entirely unfounded. Having spent a fair amount of time looking - including consulting with a linguist, there doesn't appear to be a consensus either on the proper form of "tow/toe" or, even, the appropriate metaphor given either form.
I take the fact that your reply didn't even attempt to forward any support for your position (nor, really, does this) as yet more evidence.
11/18/09
11/18/09
11/18/09
11/18/09
By the way, by the way you pair it with "Not a big deal", you should probably have used the outright "I couldn't care less" rather than the sarcastic "I could care less."
11/18/09
Although from what I've heard, the two are becoming colloquially synonymous.
11/18/09
[lmgtfy.com]
[en.wikipedia.org]
(note that if you search wikipedia for "tow the line" it redirects to "toe")
11/18/09
11/18/09
11/18/09
11/18/09
Where do I even start?
It was sarcasm - it was another misquoted, mixed up cliche.
#tips
11/18/09
#tips
11/18/09
11/18/09
11/18/09
11/18/09
[www.word-detective.com]
11/18/09
11/18/09
11/18/09
11/18/09
11/18/09
11/18/09
11/18/09
11/11/09
11/11/09
11/11/09
11/11/09
11/11/09
11/11/09
11/11/09
11/13/09
11/11/09
And could someone, ANYONE, please explain to a non-journo what the difference is between a "copy staff" and an "editorial assistant"? #thenewyorker
11/11/09
11/11/09
Copy staff means copy editors. Their main responsibility is to ensure that the flow of the printed word is both grammatically correct and in accordance with the conventions of journalism.
They review copy for grammatical accuracy, spelling, flag things such as "widows," faulty word breaks, etc. etc. Occasionally they have some last-minute input in fact-checking, but in Magazineland, the bulk of fact-checking is usually done by the time copy gets to a copy editor. It's a pretty technical job, complex yet not creative, but very essential. It's a career-type job as opposed to a mere station to something else.
Does this help? #thenewyorker
11/11/09
11/11/09
Big help. If I could heart you again, I would.
When you are not in publishing, the titles/duties are a complete mystery as to hierarchy, job content, etc. #thenewyorker
11/11/09
I have some friends that work at small publications that now have no copy staff and that farm out their editing to a separate service, but I'm not sure how common that is at bigger publications. I work for a website, and they expect me to copy edit my own stuff. Which, honestly, is next to impossible to do in any effective way. Having fresh eyes on a piece of writing is a big help. But as HamNo would say, this is how we live now: with tired eyes and grammatical errors. #thenewyorker
11/11/09
11/12/09