I very much agree. I've stayed with WP9, simply because I can't think of a reason to go to anything else. If only the Linux version wasn't a stripped down, buggy Wine hack, then I could be rid of Windows forever.
I believe they've fixed that problem in more recent versions (unless I'm mistaken, WordPerfect 9 doesn't delete codes when Reveal Codes is not active), but I can't really confirm that at the moment, because I'm not at home, where my only WordPerfect install is, and I always use Reveal Codes because it's so efficient. As for removing codes you didn't need, you simply used the keyboard shortcuts (Bold/Underline/Italics, etc.) before you started typing, or, better yet, added the codes after you finished typing (very, very easily done). Of course, with Reveal Codes on, you just delete the codes you don't need.
Agreed. I still use WP9, simply because it works well, does what I need it to, and almost never crashes while I'm working (though admittedly, I do have problems starting the program up, but that may just be a problem with xp). My few experiences with Word have been painful; WordPerfect never does anything I haven't asked it to, whereas Word frequently makes assumptions based on what I'm typing.
WordPerfect has thousands of options; you're the one who sounds like an idiot. In WordPerfect, which I've used for years, I can do anything except HTML that can be done in Word more easily, and with fewer frustrations. I do like Macs, and I do have one, but your blanket statement makes you sound like a moron. Perhaps you should think before you respond.
If he's been educated in todays public school system, he's probably been fed all the propaganda that makes him believe what he's arguing, even if he's never been shown what WordPerfect can do, or how easily WordPerfect does what it does. I, personally, have used both Word and WordPerfect, and I can't tolerate Word; nothing in Word makes sense, from an author's point of view, whereas WordPerfect is very clear about everything, and is also so easy to customize, I can do anything I need.
Actually, WordPerfect is far better than Word. You can easily publish a book written in WordPerfect; I should know because I've done it. There are easily accessible printer and page settings available in WordPerfect that allow documents to be printed in a near infinite number of ways.
I agree with your point on Vista having changed simply for the sake of changing things. I work in tech support for dial-up ISPs, and I've had to completely change the way I handle calls where the customer has Vista; Vista doesn't have INETWIZ, so I'm forced to use the new network setup wizard, which does things differently for no real reason and takes four times longer to get into. Worse it doesn't really make the setup process go any faster, since all the user has do is enter their access number, username, and password anyway; the only step I don't have to worry about on Vista is renaming the connection, since 'Dial-Up Connection' isn't as confusing as 'Connection to' and a phone number.
Other annoyances I've had are supporting IE7, which again seems to have made huge changes without any real purpose; while it's nice to have the dialog for clearing all of the different types of data consolidated in a single window, I really hate that I'm now forced to ask the customer to describe the General tab of Internet Options so I can figure out what version of IE they're using. And I've also found the new 'friendly' error messages more irritating; the computer makes no effort to tell you the reason for a connection failure unless you use the main dialog or go through an intolerable number of diagnostic steps. My reasons for hating Vista grow every day; I'm extremely happy that I have chosen to abandon Windows, except for a VM that runs the only application suite I require Windows for.
Actually, no, I did realize the nice looking woman was his wife. Still, despite the good art quality, it wasn't even remotely enough to get me to look again. Hopefully we can gain some success in campaigning against this atrocious example of pseudo-IT promoting stupidity. Personally, I find somewhat realistic demonstrations of technical support, like The IT Crowd, much more entertaining, and to date, I've only seen the pilot of that series.
Agreed. And it's also completely and totally unrealistic. Any woman hearing the kind of statement the father made about her computer would deck him, not hug him. I can't see a single reason to even think about returning to that site.
This whole Comic thing reminds me of "Biclops" from Simpsons (the superhero comic Milhouse is tricked into buying for the Android Dungeon to sell in "Worst Episode Ever"). Yet another example of Marketing taking precedence over quality.
This is a response to you regarding the response you received; I had no desire to respond to that person and start a flame war. I find it strange that you are replying to an accusation and receiving a letter stating that the burden of proof is on yourself. You are absolutely correct, and you have provided proof that the comments of the accuser was probably using as evidence of his claim had already been refuted; the first volume of "Mormon Doctrine" did make such a comment, but that statement was later rescinded by the author, Bruce R. McConkie. Probably the biggest problem in the world is that the truth is hard to hear.
For the record, I liked the article, though I can think of quite a few other keyboards that I felt sucked a lot worse than the one used by the Commodore 64 and the Vic-20 (which did, after all, provide most of the necessary functionality we use today, and had a fairly logical layout based on ASCII). Besides, as others have pointed out, at the time Commodore released the keyboard, there was no standard (the Model-M set the standard). That said, here is my question:
When IBM released the extended 101-key keyboard, based on the Model M, why did they keep the Num-Lock key, or at least, use the same driver for the 101+ keyboard that they used for the original Model M and use the Num-Lock part only for smaller keyboards? Num-Lock is completely useless on an extended 101+ key keyboard, and there's no reason why games shouldn't be able to read the keyboard the same way the standard keyboard driver does (actually, I always thought the old PC method for reading the keyboard was kind of absurd; Commodore did a much better job, despite the limitations). More over, why don't the people who write todays keyboard drivers for Linux and other operating systems treat the number pad on a 101+ key keyboard like Apple does; if the Mac detects a 101+ key keyboard, Num-Lock, while recognized, does pretty much nothing. I know the Num-Lock is a critical tool for smaller keyboards, like those on laptops, which is why Apple still recognizes the key, but why rely on ancient, obsolete drivers to support large, powerful keyboards, and cripple the functionality of the number pad in the process?
The Commodore 64 was the first computer to have a 16 bit sound system (only three voices, and each voice took a minimum of about 8ms to fill, but all three were true 16 bit). The limitations of the 1541 floppy drive (which was similar to the Atari floppy, in that both were "intelligent") were because Commodore failed to make the DOS capable of reading or writing more than one sector at a time by default (you could increase the speed by using a program that made more effective use of the available buffers). Either way, each system had its advantages and critical flaws.
That's because the 1541 (and most of Commodore's other floppy drive controllers) were intelligent; the C-64 wasn't actually multitasking. It performed its own tasks while the 1541 (which had it's own processor) handled the format. The reason for the speed issues was poor planning on the part of Commodore; by default, the 1541 had only 2k of RAM and used only one of its four 256 byte data buffers (one sector) at a time. Thus the drive had to wait for the data to be transferred out of the buffer before the next sector could be read.
It's hard to take you seriously when your post is so rife with spelling errors. The grammar and spelling of a document are good proxies for the quality of its argument.
No, they're not, but I have found that an individuals need to point out spelling mistakes is inversely proportional to his or her intelligence.
Actually, I'd argue that to point out someone's spelling mistakes for the purpose of discrediting their arguments is an inversely proportional indication of their intelligence. To point out spelling mistakes for the sake of helping that person's abilities improve is benevolent, if not potentially useless.
What's interesting is that the constitution doesn't mandate today's "winner takes all" system. The wording in the constitution is quite clear, each state chooses its electors to number of one for every representative and senator (the actual representatives and senators are forbidden to be chosen as electors, but there are no other rules). There is not now, nor has there ever been, any word in the constitution that designates how that selection is to take place. Each state decides how its electors are chosen. I'd much prefer that all of the states chose to use a proportional system based on one vote for the winner of each house district, with the two remaining votes going to the state's overall winner, or divided between the two if the numbers are too close (ie Florida in 2000). I'm not the only person who's proposed this idea (I remember an article in early 2001, I think the author was Jack Kilpatrick, but I haven't found it since), but I doubt many of the states would like this, since it might, from their point of view, weaken their voting power, though I believe it actually does better at reflecting the wishes of the nation as a whole.
Slashdot Mirror
No offense, but did Kryten (from Red Dwarf) iron it?
For Java, simply get NoScript, and be careful what you give scripting permissions to.
That's probably because Hyper-V is a really stupid name.
I very much agree. I've stayed with WP9, simply because I can't think of a reason to go to anything else. If only the Linux version wasn't a stripped down, buggy Wine hack, then I could be rid of Windows forever.
I believe they've fixed that problem in more recent versions (unless I'm mistaken, WordPerfect 9 doesn't delete codes when Reveal Codes is not active), but I can't really confirm that at the moment, because I'm not at home, where my only WordPerfect install is, and I always use Reveal Codes because it's so efficient. As for removing codes you didn't need, you simply used the keyboard shortcuts (Bold/Underline/Italics, etc.) before you started typing, or, better yet, added the codes after you finished typing (very, very easily done). Of course, with Reveal Codes on, you just delete the codes you don't need.
Agreed. I still use WP9, simply because it works well, does what I need it to, and almost never crashes while I'm working (though admittedly, I do have problems starting the program up, but that may just be a problem with xp). My few experiences with Word have been painful; WordPerfect never does anything I haven't asked it to, whereas Word frequently makes assumptions based on what I'm typing.
Was it that nice? I've used WordPerfect with one hand, and it's still better than using Word with both hands.
WordPerfect has thousands of options; you're the one who sounds like an idiot. In WordPerfect, which I've used for years, I can do anything except HTML that can be done in Word more easily, and with fewer frustrations. I do like Macs, and I do have one, but your blanket statement makes you sound like a moron. Perhaps you should think before you respond.
If he's been educated in todays public school system, he's probably been fed all the propaganda that makes him believe what he's arguing, even if he's never been shown what WordPerfect can do, or how easily WordPerfect does what it does. I, personally, have used both Word and WordPerfect, and I can't tolerate Word; nothing in Word makes sense, from an author's point of view, whereas WordPerfect is very clear about everything, and is also so easy to customize, I can do anything I need.
Actually, WordPerfect is far better than Word. You can easily publish a book written in WordPerfect; I should know because I've done it. There are easily accessible printer and page settings available in WordPerfect that allow documents to be printed in a near infinite number of ways.
Other annoyances I've had are supporting IE7, which again seems to have made huge changes without any real purpose; while it's nice to have the dialog for clearing all of the different types of data consolidated in a single window, I really hate that I'm now forced to ask the customer to describe the General tab of Internet Options so I can figure out what version of IE they're using. And I've also found the new 'friendly' error messages more irritating; the computer makes no effort to tell you the reason for a connection failure unless you use the main dialog or go through an intolerable number of diagnostic steps. My reasons for hating Vista grow every day; I'm extremely happy that I have chosen to abandon Windows, except for a VM that runs the only application suite I require Windows for.
I'm not sure I would agree with that. Manure is a very useful fertilizer.
Actually, no, I did realize the nice looking woman was his wife. Still, despite the good art quality, it wasn't even remotely enough to get me to look again. Hopefully we can gain some success in campaigning against this atrocious example of pseudo-IT promoting stupidity. Personally, I find somewhat realistic demonstrations of technical support, like The IT Crowd, much more entertaining, and to date, I've only seen the pilot of that series.
Agreed. And it's also completely and totally unrealistic. Any woman hearing the kind of statement the father made about her computer would deck him, not hug him. I can't see a single reason to even think about returning to that site.
This whole Comic thing reminds me of "Biclops" from Simpsons (the superhero comic Milhouse is tricked into buying for the Android Dungeon to sell in "Worst Episode Ever"). Yet another example of Marketing taking precedence over quality.
I think that's because you had the sensitivity settings on it too high. When you replace it, try decreasing the sensitivity.
This is a response to you regarding the response you received; I had no desire to respond to that person and start a flame war. I find it strange that you are replying to an accusation and receiving a letter stating that the burden of proof is on yourself. You are absolutely correct, and you have provided proof that the comments of the accuser was probably using as evidence of his claim had already been refuted; the first volume of "Mormon Doctrine" did make such a comment, but that statement was later rescinded by the author, Bruce R. McConkie. Probably the biggest problem in the world is that the truth is hard to hear.
So you're aware, the United Order was a completely voluntary system, and our (yes, I am a Mormon) current Welfare programs are equally voluntary.
Maybe they should shout "Supplies!"
Sorry, but I just couldn't let this slip by without throwing in a Red Dwarf joke.
When IBM released the extended 101-key keyboard, based on the Model M, why did they keep the Num-Lock key, or at least, use the same driver for the 101+ keyboard that they used for the original Model M and use the Num-Lock part only for smaller keyboards? Num-Lock is completely useless on an extended 101+ key keyboard, and there's no reason why games shouldn't be able to read the keyboard the same way the standard keyboard driver does (actually, I always thought the old PC method for reading the keyboard was kind of absurd; Commodore did a much better job, despite the limitations). More over, why don't the people who write todays keyboard drivers for Linux and other operating systems treat the number pad on a 101+ key keyboard like Apple does; if the Mac detects a 101+ key keyboard, Num-Lock, while recognized, does pretty much nothing. I know the Num-Lock is a critical tool for smaller keyboards, like those on laptops, which is why Apple still recognizes the key, but why rely on ancient, obsolete drivers to support large, powerful keyboards, and cripple the functionality of the number pad in the process?
The Commodore 64 was the first computer to have a 16 bit sound system (only three voices, and each voice took a minimum of about 8ms to fill, but all three were true 16 bit). The limitations of the 1541 floppy drive (which was similar to the Atari floppy, in that both were "intelligent") were because Commodore failed to make the DOS capable of reading or writing more than one sector at a time by default (you could increase the speed by using a program that made more effective use of the available buffers). Either way, each system had its advantages and critical flaws.
That's because the 1541 (and most of Commodore's other floppy drive controllers) were intelligent; the C-64 wasn't actually multitasking. It performed its own tasks while the 1541 (which had it's own processor) handled the format. The reason for the speed issues was poor planning on the part of Commodore; by default, the 1541 had only 2k of RAM and used only one of its four 256 byte data buffers (one sector) at a time. Thus the drive had to wait for the data to be transferred out of the buffer before the next sector could be read.
Actually, I'd argue that to point out someone's spelling mistakes for the purpose of discrediting their arguments is an inversely proportional indication of their intelligence. To point out spelling mistakes for the sake of helping that person's abilities improve is benevolent, if not potentially useless.
Just sayin', myself.
What's interesting is that the constitution doesn't mandate today's "winner takes all" system. The wording in the constitution is quite clear, each state chooses its electors to number of one for every representative and senator (the actual representatives and senators are forbidden to be chosen as electors, but there are no other rules). There is not now, nor has there ever been, any word in the constitution that designates how that selection is to take place. Each state decides how its electors are chosen. I'd much prefer that all of the states chose to use a proportional system based on one vote for the winner of each house district, with the two remaining votes going to the state's overall winner, or divided between the two if the numbers are too close (ie Florida in 2000). I'm not the only person who's proposed this idea (I remember an article in early 2001, I think the author was Jack Kilpatrick, but I haven't found it since), but I doubt many of the states would like this, since it might, from their point of view, weaken their voting power, though I believe it actually does better at reflecting the wishes of the nation as a whole.