You know, something putting things in bold is a visually pleasing way of drawing more attention to topic sentences so people can skim instead of reading the whole article. But when you do it too much it just look like crap.
While I don't like this whole thing, I think your analogy is bad. It would be more like you buy drugs from that coffee shop owner and they send them to you through the mail. And that coffee shop owner had ads in your local paper advertising their services. And then they arrest the coffee shop owner when he visits the US.
Like I said, I think the gambling thing is dumb. But lets not weaken our argument by engaging in hyperbole.
Compare this with the other story posted today where US leftists are aiming to revoke the 1st Amendment in their continuing efforts to suppress political dissent during campaigns, reign in unregulated bloggers
*sigh* Should I even bother to point out that the whole "reign in unregulated bloggers" is an amendment by David Vitter (R-LA)? Of course, then I'd have to explain that's it's being overblown anyway. Oh, nevermind, have fun with your tirade.
You're editing some excel spreadsheet. Then the boss mails you a copy with some changes to it. You want to open it from email. You can't until you close the other one of the same name.
You laid on the sarcasm so heavy it's hard to tell which parts, if any, you really mean. Personally, I'm not enthused about the ribbon junk but I'm willing to give it a shot. They have the option to make them auto-hide, so they shouldn't take up any more screen space than normal main menus do. I've always found Excel's menus to be rather asinine, so I'll grant that it's POSSIBLE that this could make them better.
As a user, I agree with you. As a programmer, I realize you can only do a certain amount of work in a certain amount of time. Also, when you are building on a large existing codebase, it can be rather risk and expensive to go back and remove limitations that are at the core of that foundation.
God, I hope so. I still remember running into that before and thinking WTF. I GUESS I can see the reasoning behind it when dealing with about 95% of Excel users. But it still pissed me off.
Then again, if they don't fix it, I guess they'll have something for Excel 2008!
Agreed. I also agree with those that say "you don't need more than 65k rows - anything that big should be a database." But the thing is, Excel is a great hack. It's kind of like perl. There are plenty of things you shouldn't do in perl, but sometimes it's a lifesaver to have a tool that you can do whatever you need in an hour rather than having to do it the "right way" and take a full day. Especially when what your finished with is probably going to be looked over, used for this one task, then tossed.
Actually, there are quite a few very good improvements to Excel. They finally blew the doors off of a bunch of stupid limits:
The total number of available columns in Excel Old Limit: 256 (28) New Limit: 16k (214)
The total number of available rows in Excel Old Limit: 64k (216) New Limit: 1M (220)
Total amount of PC memory that Excel can use Old Limit: 1GB New Limit: Maximum allowed by Windows
Number of unique colours allowed a single workbook Old Limit: 56 (indexed colour) New Limit: 4.3 billion (32-bit colour)
Number of conditional format conditions on a cell Old Limit: 3 conditions New Limit: Limited by available memory
Number of levels of sorting on a range or table Old Limit: 3 New Limit: 64
Number of rows allowed in a Pivot Table Old Limit: 64k New Limit: 1M
Number of columns allowed in a Pivot Table Old Limit: 255 New Limit: 16k
Maximum number of unique items within a single Pivot Field Old Limit: 32k New Limit: 1M
I will probably install Excel 2007 but nothing else. The conditional formatting alone should be worth it. Once you really understand it, you can quickly do some very useful things.
All of this seems beside the point. Since when in modern times has the US government done anything against a oligopsony, monopsony, or oligopoly? Even though Microsoft was found to be a monopoly, they escaped with relatively little punishment. Since the 30s, the only real use of the anti-trust law has been against AT&T in '82 (again, a monopoly). While I WISH there were more competition in different regions for cable, phone, power, etc., the reality is that anti-trust law doesn't really enter into the picture as your comment implied.
BTW, you can draw an almost direct comparison between the cable box lock-in and sim-locked mobile phones. Would you also call that an anti-trust issue?
What you said simply doesn't make sense. There are four major cable companies - hence no monopoly. If you don't count DISH and DirectTV, then you could maybe argue they have a regional monopoly on premium tv programming. But if the history of local phone companies has taught us anything, it's that the federal government considers regional "monopolies" OK.
Yes, in fact, I do. But "worry" isn't the right word. The word is "pissed", I believe. In fact, I believe he will be much more pissed off than if he had paid $50 for the phone and the program he wanted cost $30.
I agree with you, partially. The recent story about the FCC mandating that cable boxes not be locked down to a specific provider is an example where I like for the FCC to stick its nose in. The FCC just needs to have a "Rule #1" that any guidance they give is to serve the consumers. The broadcast flag would have failed that test quite easily.
Your forgot "and have the ability to see into the future." Otherwise, I'm not sure how you can determine you're going to still be healthy in 6 months, 1 year, 5 years, etc. How many people do you know with a health problem that you would have considered "healthy" six months before it was diagnosed? I know plenty. Plus, there's accidents. By their very nature, they come at you out of the blue. Try having an accident without health insurance - like maybe wrecking your bike and breaking your jaw (happened to a friend) or falling and cracking your head open (again, someone I know).
I'm not saying don't pursue your dreams and live on the edge. I'm just saying, be aware that you are taking risks and you may crap out.
All very good points and I don't actually disagree with them.
Once again, you seem to be missing the point of my post. It was a side-comment on how I'd rather the US use imperial-only rather than a mishmash of imperial and metric, as in the UK. Read the post it was in reply to and you will see the poster is talking about how they do exactly that. And if you read my post, you will see that I said I wished we had already been on the metric system before I was born. So I'm not sure why you think you need to give me the "cosmopolitan view", as these are all points we both agree on.
The whole point of my post is that UK uses metric and imperial in a very inconsistent fashion. For example, they use imperial for road signs (speed limit, distances, overhead clearance, etc.). Milk is often sold in even pints (with converted liters in parentheses). People tend to tell you their weight in stones, even though they do their vegetable shopping in kilos. Here's some more info: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3934353.stm
The US has some inconsistencies as well, but they tend to be very small and not factor into day-to-day life. Large bottles of soft drinks are sold in 2 liter and less frequently 3 liter sizes, with no gallon jugs ever found. But it's not really a factor because to an american, 2 liters means "the size of a 2 liter bottle of Coke". And 1 liter means "about half the size of a 2 liter bottle of Coke". Hopefully I'm making myself clear here. The other major place in the US you'll see metic listings is in the nutrional breakdown on the side of food packaging. I think they use grams there because ounces would need to be carried out to a few decimal places. But since reading "520mg of sodium" really means about as little as "0.018 ounces of sodium" to most people, it's not really relevant.
Slashdot Mirror
What authority do they have to set a national speed limit?
Might as well ask people to explain why facism is a bad idea without bringing up Hitler or Mussolini...
And Nabisco (National Biscuit Company) got its start making hardtack biscuits, which we would now call "crackers" (at least in the US).
You know, something putting things in bold is a visually pleasing way of drawing more attention to topic sentences so people can skim instead of reading the whole article. But when you do it too much it just look like crap.
While I don't like this whole thing, I think your analogy is bad. It would be more like you buy drugs from that coffee shop owner and they send them to you through the mail. And that coffee shop owner had ads in your local paper advertising their services. And then they arrest the coffee shop owner when he visits the US.
Like I said, I think the gambling thing is dumb. But lets not weaken our argument by engaging in hyperbole.
How about a movie based on a play based on a movie about a play?
You're editing some excel spreadsheet. Then the boss mails you a copy with some changes to it. You want to open it from email. You can't until you close the other one of the same name.
You laid on the sarcasm so heavy it's hard to tell which parts, if any, you really mean. Personally, I'm not enthused about the ribbon junk but I'm willing to give it a shot. They have the option to make them auto-hide, so they shouldn't take up any more screen space than normal main menus do. I've always found Excel's menus to be rather asinine, so I'll grant that it's POSSIBLE that this could make them better.
As a user, I agree with you. As a programmer, I realize you can only do a certain amount of work in a certain amount of time. Also, when you are building on a large existing codebase, it can be rather risk and expensive to go back and remove limitations that are at the core of that foundation.
As both, I can say it is an overdue change.
Yes, I believe Excel 2007 adds transparency, as well as lighting effects, shadows, and reflections.
God, I hope so. I still remember running into that before and thinking WTF. I GUESS I can see the reasoning behind it when dealing with about 95% of Excel users. But it still pissed me off.
Then again, if they don't fix it, I guess they'll have something for Excel 2008!
Agreed. I also agree with those that say "you don't need more than 65k rows - anything that big should be a database." But the thing is, Excel is a great hack. It's kind of like perl. There are plenty of things you shouldn't do in perl, but sometimes it's a lifesaver to have a tool that you can do whatever you need in an hour rather than having to do it the "right way" and take a full day. Especially when what your finished with is probably going to be looked over, used for this one task, then tossed.
I'm all for the Army getting onboard this project. So when the bears attack, our Army will be ready!
Seriously, though, Colbert has GOT to have this guy on the show. It's just a natural fit. Yeah, I guess that would be TOO easy.
Actually, there are quite a few very good improvements to Excel. They finally blew the doors off of a bunch of stupid limits:
The total number of available columns in Excel
Old Limit: 256 (28)
New Limit: 16k (214)
The total number of available rows in Excel
Old Limit: 64k (216)
New Limit: 1M (220)
Total amount of PC memory that Excel can use
Old Limit: 1GB
New Limit: Maximum allowed by Windows
Number of unique colours allowed a single workbook
Old Limit: 56 (indexed colour)
New Limit: 4.3 billion (32-bit colour)
Number of conditional format conditions on a cell
Old Limit: 3 conditions
New Limit: Limited by available memory
Number of levels of sorting on a range or table
Old Limit: 3
New Limit: 64
Number of rows allowed in a Pivot Table
Old Limit: 64k
New Limit: 1M
Number of columns allowed in a Pivot Table
Old Limit: 255
New Limit: 16k
Maximum number of unique items within a single Pivot Field
Old Limit: 32k
New Limit: 1M
I will probably install Excel 2007 but nothing else. The conditional formatting alone should be worth it. Once you really understand it, you can quickly do some very useful things.
All of this seems beside the point. Since when in modern times has the US government done anything against a oligopsony, monopsony, or oligopoly? Even though Microsoft was found to be a monopoly, they escaped with relatively little punishment. Since the 30s, the only real use of the anti-trust law has been against AT&T in '82 (again, a monopoly). While I WISH there were more competition in different regions for cable, phone, power, etc., the reality is that anti-trust law doesn't really enter into the picture as your comment implied.
BTW, you can draw an almost direct comparison between the cable box lock-in and sim-locked mobile phones. Would you also call that an anti-trust issue?
What you said simply doesn't make sense. There are four major cable companies - hence no monopoly. If you don't count DISH and DirectTV, then you could maybe argue they have a regional monopoly on premium tv programming. But if the history of local phone companies has taught us anything, it's that the federal government considers regional "monopolies" OK.
Clarification, please.
Yes, in fact, I do. But "worry" isn't the right word. The word is "pissed", I believe. In fact, I believe he will be much more pissed off than if he had paid $50 for the phone and the program he wanted cost $30.
The keyword here is "buy".
I agree with you, partially. The recent story about the FCC mandating that cable boxes not be locked down to a specific provider is an example where I like for the FCC to stick its nose in. The FCC just needs to have a "Rule #1" that any guidance they give is to serve the consumers. The broadcast flag would have failed that test quite easily.
Your forgot "and have the ability to see into the future." Otherwise, I'm not sure how you can determine you're going to still be healthy in 6 months, 1 year, 5 years, etc. How many people do you know with a health problem that you would have considered "healthy" six months before it was diagnosed? I know plenty. Plus, there's accidents. By their very nature, they come at you out of the blue. Try having an accident without health insurance - like maybe wrecking your bike and breaking your jaw (happened to a friend) or falling and cracking your head open (again, someone I know).
I'm not saying don't pursue your dreams and live on the edge. I'm just saying, be aware that you are taking risks and you may crap out.
All very good points and I don't actually disagree with them.
Once again, you seem to be missing the point of my post. It was a side-comment on how I'd rather the US use imperial-only rather than a mishmash of imperial and metric, as in the UK. Read the post it was in reply to and you will see the poster is talking about how they do exactly that. And if you read my post, you will see that I said I wished we had already been on the metric system before I was born. So I'm not sure why you think you need to give me the "cosmopolitan view", as these are all points we both agree on.
Not really. Perhaps you should look up "consistency" in a dictionary.
Hate to have to quote it twice in one day, but as George Carlin says - "Try to pay attention to the language we've all agreed on."
The whole point of my post is that UK uses metric and imperial in a very inconsistent fashion. For example, they use imperial for road signs (speed limit, distances, overhead clearance, etc.). Milk is often sold in even pints (with converted liters in parentheses). People tend to tell you their weight in stones, even though they do their vegetable shopping in kilos. Here's some more info:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3934353.stm
The US has some inconsistencies as well, but they tend to be very small and not factor into day-to-day life. Large bottles of soft drinks are sold in 2 liter and less frequently 3 liter sizes, with no gallon jugs ever found. But it's not really a factor because to an american, 2 liters means "the size of a 2 liter bottle of Coke". And 1 liter means "about half the size of a 2 liter bottle of Coke". Hopefully I'm making myself clear here. The other major place in the US you'll see metic listings is in the nutrional breakdown on the side of food packaging. I think they use grams there because ounces would need to be carried out to a few decimal places. But since reading "520mg of sodium" really means about as little as "0.018 ounces of sodium" to most people, it's not really relevant.