Actually, you can use WordPerfect to write a book; I've helped publish a book using WordPerfect, which was written entirely in WordPerfect (it looks very professional), and that is not 'formal book authoring software', but a very powerful word processor. And as for day to day docs, WordPerfect blows Word completely away with great features like Reveal Codes (the most powerful document editing tool I've ever encountered), Center on Margin, Flush Right, Indent, and the Properties Bar (which changes to meet your current document needs). Word is now, and has always been, a sorry excuse for a word processor. I only wish more OSS office publishers would follow WordPerfect's example.
I'll agree that the Merriam-Webster site gives more thorough definitions than my print dictionary, however, the terms "to cause the death of" in the definition of kill does not imply ill intent, whereas the main definition of murder is in reference specifically to the crime, which does. With regards to slay, yes, the more specific definition does imply intent, so the two dictionaries appear to disagree on that point. However, an apparent disagreement in definition is not necessarily an actual disagreement. As others have pointed out, however, other translations more modern than the KJV specifically use the word murder and several older translations in non-English bibles, as well as the Hebrew Torah, use words that mean Murder. However, the point still remains that you blatantly stated that the definition of kill is unequivocally another word for murder, and neither the Merriam-Webster or the New American Webster Dictionaries bear this out. As I stated in my previous post, synonym is not another word for definition (as in English, a definition in Mathematics is an argument that is always true on both sides of the equals sign).
Agreed. The first few times I used versions of Linux, I stopped because I couldn't tolerate the interface (I still don't like Gnome, but at least it's better than KDE, in my opinion, and is more flexible and easier to configure than Windows). Since installing Ubuntu, however, I've found the whole experience much more tolerable. The only thing I'm using Windows for, anymore, is the WordPerfect Office 2000 suite, and that's only because it blows any version of MS Office and OpenOffice away, aside from a quite tolerable bit of instability.
That's an interesting statistic; my usage might be about the same. I only use Windows on a VM so I can run the WordPerfect Office suite instead of OpenOffice, since WordPerfect does things no other word processor I've ever used has ever done (such as Reveal Codes, Center on Margin, and many others). Since installing the VM, I can honestly say I've used Windows for nothing else (admittedly, I used TweakUI to deal with a few of Windows' quirks I can't stand, but since that's a configuration utility, I don't believe that should count as actual use). For everything else, I've used Linux or my Mac.
Twenty years ago we did have basically solo projects, managed by one guy who dreamed it up on his Apple II in his basement in assembly, but those days, by and large, are gone.
And tis a bloody shame, too.
Unfortunately, the best innovation of any kind comes from individuals given the freedom and resources to investigate and test out their own ideas. All too often in today's world, brilliant ideas are torn apart by people who think they know better, whether the idea is generated via open source or closed source. Fortunately, there are ideas that still survive, but it seems those are rapidly disappearing.
Well stated. From my point of view, "Muslim" terrorists are extremists who have abandoned the truths of their religion in order to destroy those whom they believe to be wrong. These people may regard the traditional prohibitions against suicide and murder as minor commandments, or as directive that are no longer in force. It's all a tragic waste of life, in my opinion.
Actually, you are wrong. From The 1995 New American Webster Handy College Dictionary, the definition of murder is "homicide with malice aforethought" (p449), the definition of kill is "to put to death; slay" (p380), and the definition of slay is "kill by violence" (p624). Neither the definition of kill nor the definition of slay uses the term "malice aforethought", which is what makes all the difference.
In fact, Merriam-Webster online defines Kill AND slay as synonyms of murder.
They may be synonyms, but the definition of synonym is "a word having the same, or nearly the same, meaning as another" (ibid p664). Killing is not necessarily murder, while murder is always killing. Another point I could make is that it is possible for an inanimate object to kill, but inanimate objects cannot possibly murder, since they cannot possibly have a motive.
Many of your comments here are quite valid; it's possible the iPod (any perhaps even the iPhone) was intended to drive other companies out of the MP3 market, though I have not seen any clear evidence that this is the case. And I, too, am not really happy about the inability to run Apple software on non-Apple hardware (I was merely pointing out what I've read about the company's policy; perhaps I should have expressed my opinion, too). I will, however, direct my responses to other comments you made in response to mine.
Oh, and Visual Studio. And the Xbox 360.
I didn't mention Visual Studio because I have no experience with the product, nor have I ever seen it. I've seen the XBox 360, but I haven't seen anything that is XBox only that I would want to purchase the console for.
I'm no Microsoft fanboy, but they are capable, at least in small ways, of putting forth a very solid product. I suspect that they don't unless they have to, but you have to also consider that Microsoft does not function as a unit. Compare Halo with... well... any other Microsoft product. You can criticize the game all you want -- I happen to like it -- but the engine is absolutely rock solid.
I've seen Halo, but it didn't really interest me, so I never bothered playing. I watched my brother playing it for a few minutes when he borrowed it from his friend, but only for a minute or two at a time before I got bored and went back to whatever else it was I was doing at the time (likely working on one of my projects, though it was too long ago for me to remember clearly). I can say the game seemed pretty solid and stable, but it's been years since the traditional FPS interested me; the only FPS I've play in the past seven years or so is Metroid Prime, and that's an FPS only in that you have a first person view and a weapon. I also recognize that Microsoft isn't a unit.
The real point, for me, is that as a consumer, a world ruled by Apple is better for me only in that Apple makes quality products. As such, a world ruled by Microsoft is almost more appealing, because there would be more choice.
Again, I agree with you, in principle. I'm not sure, however, that Apple's products would remain quality if they managed to take over the world, and I'm equally unsure that customers would still have more choice if Microsoft gained absolute control. Apple, after all, did fire Steve Jobs, then started producing some pretty bad products, and Microsoft has a history of taking actions that would limit customer choice. Basically, I'm saying that the freedom to choose cannot be guaranteed under the rule of any one corporation.
Now you are addressing motivation and business models, and we can really only guess at that. As I said in the conclusion of my other post, I understand that there is a difference -- I just don't think it's one you can define legally, except for the bit where Microsoft has actually succeeded at becoming a monopoly.
Good point. I should have worded that a little differently; I don't see that Apple is trying to control the market with Safari, while I do see Microsoft working hard to force IE on the market. As I said at the beginning of my original comment, I believe comparing the evident business strategies is more beneficial to arguments than trying to compare similar actions that have been taken by different companies. Overall, I actually never use Safari (the only time I did was when I got my Mac, and I downloaded Firefox immediately afterward).
I guess my original point is that I never really looked at Microsoft including Internet Explorer with Windows as a problem; when I asked others what the problem was, their answers never seemed to make a lot of sense, so I don't really see that using the same argument against Safari is logical. However, I do see attempts to force customers to use a product over all others as a
You're welcome. I would like to say that your response to my earlier post didn't sound like an attack on me, just a counter balance to my arguments. I, too, avoid attacking people when I make responses. I tend to find that attacks on people generally say that the writer is speaking emotionally, and isn't thinking his comments through very thoroughly.
But I don't suppose I'm going to get through to you. I've been trolled pretty hard, haven't I?
I would like to point out that my earlier argument to your earlier attempt to speak reason to the AC's in this thread, while I fully support everything I said, was aimed more toward the AC than at you, though I won't take a single word of my earlier statement back. I do completely agree with your everything you've said in this specific post, however. Microsoft has a history of bullying the markets it enters.
And the idea that IE is completely stable is, in my opinion, extremely laughable. As the AC stated, Firefox does have its problems, but contrary to the AC's statements, Mozilla doesn't just sit on their hands and ignore the issues; they may not respond immediately to every bug, but they don't rest on their laurels, either. Microsoft, on the other hand, sat on the buggy IE6 until Firefox began threatening its market dominance. IE7 may be better (though I'll never know, since I've now nearly detached myself from Microsoft completely, and have no intention of returning; I only VM Windows so I can use the WordPerfect 9 suite), but Microsoft lost my interest in finding out.
I would argue that your entire line of reasoning is skewed. Apple isn't trying to gain a monopoly in any market it sells equipment in (the iPod's name recognition is similar to BandAid's or Kleenex's, but can, by no stretch of the imagination, be considered a monopoly; Apple isn't trying to foist the iPod onto their customers, but are merely attracting them with a quality product). Microsoft, on the other hand, seems incapable of entering a market without the goal of becoming a monopoly in that market; they have so far succeeded with operating systems and core business productivity (word processors, spreadsheets, etc).
Apple produces quality products and has no desire to mar the image of their software products by allowing them to work on cheep hardware; the least expensive Apple products are still mid-range in terms of quality. I'm not saying Apple's perfect; they make plenty of mistakes, and Steve Jobs has made a good number of his own. But they don't do business with the objective of hurting the customer, who, in their eyes, is the actual consumer.
Microsoft on the other hand, produces poor products and has an intense desire to improve their image while putting forth the minimal effort to do so; the most expensive Microsoft products (with the possible exception of Excel, some of their games, like Freelancer, and some of their hardware, like their mice) are mid-range at best in terms of quality. They do business with the objective of controlling every market they enter with no regard for the consumer, only their immediate customers.
Comparing the way Apple bundles their software with the way Microsoft bundles their software ignores the real point; the arguments against Microsoft should be about the Microsoft method of doing business. The acts of hobbling IE in terms of compliance with legitimate standards and bundling it with Windows has been made as a deliberate move to force the market to use IE and accept its deficiencies as a standard. Apple's inclusion of Safari, which is compliant with legitimate standards, in Mac OS X doesn't even begin to compare, since that has been made as a move to give their customers a means of easily accessing the internet, and nothing more; they don't want to control the market with Safari. I can't see any real similarity in these two business models.
1. Install Ad Block Plus (very small download, even with a 56k connection), and No Script (which is just a little bit bigger; yes, it's three or four times the size of Ad Block, yes, but that's only about a hundred kilobytes or so).
2. Go into the Preferences for Ad Block Plus.
3. Add filters for myminicity.*, dwarfurl.*, and anything else that redirects you to myminicity.
The pages still load, but they do so very quickly, and No Script then prevents them from running their Java applets.
And by the way, HiggsBison is totally correct about his point regarding the term kernel; it's not only a key indicator of a junk argument, but it's also been hideously misused and misspelled. Kernel refers only to the core of an operating system, the part that sets the standard for hardware/software communication, manages memory, initiates applications, and performs a (preferably small) number of other critically vital system services (things that keep the computer running).
The bad idea about Visual Basic was not that it let noobs program, but that Windows gave thosee programs, even little MS Office macros, full access to the the users computer, and worse, often ran them by default without even requiring user input,.
I completely agree with this point. No scripting language should ever be allowed full control of the user's computer. A good scripting language, in my opinion, should only be allowed to perform two IO functions, if it's given any IO control at all, and those are to open a document that the current application can use, and to save a document that's already open. I think everything else should be completely internal to the application.
Oh, and I should also point out that I completely agree that Visual Basic, QBasic, and every other variant of Microsoft Basic wasn't innovative. Just didn't think I should post this without making my opinion on that clear.
Please allow me to point out three major reasons the secretary might have hated switching to Word from WordPerfect:
1. Reveal Codes: This is the ultimate editing tool; reveal codes allows a WordPerfect user to see exactly why a document appears the way it does, showing every nuance of the document in a very simple, straightforward fashion. This was impossible to properly implement in Word because they use a document format that is makes adding codes to the text impossible; Word's format is 'object oriented', a text string followed by a mess object pointers (this also slows the editing process, since each object pointer has to be updated anytime text is added into the middle of the document). WordPerfect's file format, on the other hand, is stream based, the entire document is presented as a long data string, much like an HTML or XML document, with codes interlaced within the text, which makes editing much faster, since all you have to do to add text is just shove everything below it down (graphics and other objects are stored as separate objects, but since they don't have to be changed as the document is edited, editing remains quick and simple).
2. Specialized Formatting: WordPerfect included several codes that I've never seen in any other word processor, including 'Center on Margin', 'Right Flush', and two forms of 'Indent', which allow the user to make small changes to a line or a paragraph without changing any of the document settings. 'Center on Margin' and 'Right Flush' give you a single line of center justification and right justification without changing the justification settings, and both can be used on the same line, which gives you the ability to create three columns without changing any document settings or creating a table. These specialized formatting codes allow users to do simple things with their documents without wasting extra time fiddling with tab settings or creating a table; there are very, very few documents I create in WordPerfect that I don't use Center on Margin at least once in, and I often use Center on Margin in place of Center Justification.
3. The Mouse is *not* required, except for things that would be completely illogical to do without the mouse. I frequently use keyboard shortcuts to do all sorts of things, simply because it's easier, faster, and more efficient than screwing around with the mouse. Furthermore, you can make sweeping changes that effect the entire document simply by putting the cursor at the beginning and applying the change there; there's no need to waste time highlighting the entire document. From my somewhat limited experience with Word (I've detested every second I've had to deal with the app), I've had to use the mouse for a number of things that I'd just have used the keyboard for in WordPerfect, and find myself wasting a lot of time trying to cope with the numerous frustrations.
These three reasons, and possibly many others, may have been reasons for the secretary's frustrations and displeasure at being forced to switch to Word. I know these have been the most significant reasons I've found Word to be a substandard excuse for a word processor, and I know many others who refuse to make the switch for the same reasons.
That is true, but I find it ironic that Microsoft's stock took a significant dive at the beginning of the year, when they released Vista; I'm not exactly sure what's caused the surge in the last three months or so, but I seriously doubt it's directly related to Vista.
Most likely, the recent boost is related to how they claim Vista has been selling, which may be inaccurate (I've heard, through other comments on this site, that Microsoft claims all Windows sales since Vista's release as Windows sales, even if they're XP, and it's also possible they aren't giving us a fair assessment of Vista returns, or that those returning to XP aren't trying to, or aren't able to, get Vista refunds).
Regardless, Microsoft's best stock value was around January 2000, if I recall correctly, after which they dropped steeply, losing half their value in a very short time (a few months), and they've taken seven years to get back to a point where their value is a little better than half of that peak, which is not a very good overall track record, in my opinion.
That won't hose the system, it will only hose the current user's account, so you're wrong; even if the user in question is the only user on the system, the system itself won't be permanently damaged.
Actually, I'd think my sig explained it all. That, and the fact my jokes tend to be somewhat complex in nature, which again, recursively points back to my sig.
I'd actually say that codes not nearly as bad as what I found in the original Metroid's Sound Driver, which repeatedly used the following contexts (this is in 6502 assembly):
All instances of performing a fixed value compare of the X register (the efficient method is CPX #):
TXA (Transfer X to A)
CMP #$ (Compare A)
The Same goes for doing the same with the Y register (the efficient method is CPY #), with TXA replaced with TYA.
And then there was a section of code used to determine what function to call based on the highest set bit in a source value initially stored in A:
LDY #00 (clear the Y register)
STA $ (store A in memory)
loop:
ASL $ (shift a byte in memory one bit to the left)
BCS exit (branch to the function call if the shifted bit was a binary 1)
INY (add one to Y)
INY
TYA
CMP #$
BCC loop (this repeated the loop until Y reached the ending value)
This function had quite a bit of overhead, as well; I simplified the entire subroutine (overhead and all) to a very simple function that does the exact same thing:
LDY #00
loop:
ASL A (shift A one bit left)
BCS exit
INX
CPY #
BCC loop
That said, I'm actually a very poor coder; my comments, when I remember to add them in, are decent, but most of my code somehow fails to do what I intend, and my debugging efforts fail far more often than they succeed.
I'd like to say I completely agree with you; the constitution gives the federal government no power to regulate marriage, adoption, or even discrimination. The ninth and tenth amendments explicitly restrict the federal government from making laws that "deny or disparage the rights of the people" (ninth) and from using or regulating "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution" (tenth); read the actual amendments to see what I mean. Certain clauses in the constitution have been taken so far out of the context that the founding fathers envisioned (for example, 'promote the general Welfare' has been construed to mean providing social services to the public, but was seen as the founding fathers as providing for the needs of the country as a whole) that many of todays laws are strictly unconstitutional by any merit, yet are considered by many to be core principles upon which our nation was founded. Your statements here are strictly in keeping with what the Constitution says and means, and that is why I, myself, feel that Ron Paul is the best of the current breed of candidates.
At least on Ubuntu, 64 bit Firefox is now able to get Flash (another thread on this post indicated that it's running an encapsulated verion of the 64 bit Windows version). I cannot speak for any other Linux distro.
Excellent point. From The New American Webster Handy College Dictionary, Third Edition p118:
censor n. 1. one empowered to judge the fitness of manuscripts, communications, etc. for publication. 2. one who censures; a fault finder
v.t. judge critically; examine for fitness; delete as unsuitable.
As you and others have pointed out, the definition of censor makes absolutely no mention of government, implicitly or explicitly; "empowered to judge" is a status that can be granted by anyone with sufficient power within a business, church, school, etc. Furthermore, the definition I have provided is a word for word copy of the text within the dictionary I cited; aside from the pronunciation note, I have excluded nothing of relevance (don't believe me, check it out yourself).
I coined a definition to "Comcastic" yesterday: We're going to stiff you, no matter what you try.
My experience with them was a land line my sister signed up for when she lived with my brother and me; when she moved out, we contacted Comcast to have the name on the account changed, and they gave us some bullshit about the issue requiring a "reinstall" that would cost us $20. We weren't about to pay that much for something that could be done in ten seconds, so we just left her name on the account. We finally left them when they decided that they would no longer support the analog service in our area, which was the only thing we have been able to afford at the present (unfortunately, we're now getting our service through Qwest, which is just as bad (their installer didn't even bother to check with us to see if the connection had been made, failed to connect the line to the house, and we ultimately had to fix their mistake ourselves; this led a friend of mine to describe their "Spirit of Service" as "We're the phone company, so f*** you" (I describe it as "Spirit of Disservice".
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, you can use WordPerfect to write a book; I've helped publish a book using WordPerfect, which was written entirely in WordPerfect (it looks very professional), and that is not 'formal book authoring software', but a very powerful word processor. And as for day to day docs, WordPerfect blows Word completely away with great features like Reveal Codes (the most powerful document editing tool I've ever encountered), Center on Margin, Flush Right, Indent, and the Properties Bar (which changes to meet your current document needs). Word is now, and has always been, a sorry excuse for a word processor. I only wish more OSS office publishers would follow WordPerfect's example.
I'll agree that the Merriam-Webster site gives more thorough definitions than my print dictionary, however, the terms "to cause the death of" in the definition of kill does not imply ill intent, whereas the main definition of murder is in reference specifically to the crime, which does. With regards to slay, yes, the more specific definition does imply intent, so the two dictionaries appear to disagree on that point. However, an apparent disagreement in definition is not necessarily an actual disagreement. As others have pointed out, however, other translations more modern than the KJV specifically use the word murder and several older translations in non-English bibles, as well as the Hebrew Torah, use words that mean Murder. However, the point still remains that you blatantly stated that the definition of kill is unequivocally another word for murder, and neither the Merriam-Webster or the New American Webster Dictionaries bear this out. As I stated in my previous post, synonym is not another word for definition (as in English, a definition in Mathematics is an argument that is always true on both sides of the equals sign).
Agreed. The first few times I used versions of Linux, I stopped because I couldn't tolerate the interface (I still don't like Gnome, but at least it's better than KDE, in my opinion, and is more flexible and easier to configure than Windows). Since installing Ubuntu, however, I've found the whole experience much more tolerable. The only thing I'm using Windows for, anymore, is the WordPerfect Office 2000 suite, and that's only because it blows any version of MS Office and OpenOffice away, aside from a quite tolerable bit of instability.
That's an interesting statistic; my usage might be about the same. I only use Windows on a VM so I can run the WordPerfect Office suite instead of OpenOffice, since WordPerfect does things no other word processor I've ever used has ever done (such as Reveal Codes, Center on Margin, and many others). Since installing the VM, I can honestly say I've used Windows for nothing else (admittedly, I used TweakUI to deal with a few of Windows' quirks I can't stand, but since that's a configuration utility, I don't believe that should count as actual use). For everything else, I've used Linux or my Mac.
And tis a bloody shame, too.
Unfortunately, the best innovation of any kind comes from individuals given the freedom and resources to investigate and test out their own ideas. All too often in today's world, brilliant ideas are torn apart by people who think they know better, whether the idea is generated via open source or closed source. Fortunately, there are ideas that still survive, but it seems those are rapidly disappearing.
Well stated. From my point of view, "Muslim" terrorists are extremists who have abandoned the truths of their religion in order to destroy those whom they believe to be wrong. These people may regard the traditional prohibitions against suicide and murder as minor commandments, or as directive that are no longer in force. It's all a tragic waste of life, in my opinion.
Actually, you are wrong. From The 1995 New American Webster Handy College Dictionary, the definition of murder is "homicide with malice aforethought" (p449), the definition of kill is "to put to death; slay" (p380), and the definition of slay is "kill by violence" (p624). Neither the definition of kill nor the definition of slay uses the term "malice aforethought", which is what makes all the difference.
They may be synonyms, but the definition of synonym is "a word having the same, or nearly the same, meaning as another" (ibid p664). Killing is not necessarily murder, while murder is always killing. Another point I could make is that it is possible for an inanimate object to kill, but inanimate objects cannot possibly murder, since they cannot possibly have a motive.
I didn't mention Visual Studio because I have no experience with the product, nor have I ever seen it. I've seen the XBox 360, but I haven't seen anything that is XBox only that I would want to purchase the console for.
I've seen Halo, but it didn't really interest me, so I never bothered playing. I watched my brother playing it for a few minutes when he borrowed it from his friend, but only for a minute or two at a time before I got bored and went back to whatever else it was I was doing at the time (likely working on one of my projects, though it was too long ago for me to remember clearly). I can say the game seemed pretty solid and stable, but it's been years since the traditional FPS interested me; the only FPS I've play in the past seven years or so is Metroid Prime, and that's an FPS only in that you have a first person view and a weapon. I also recognize that Microsoft isn't a unit.
Again, I agree with you, in principle. I'm not sure, however, that Apple's products would remain quality if they managed to take over the world, and I'm equally unsure that customers would still have more choice if Microsoft gained absolute control. Apple, after all, did fire Steve Jobs, then started producing some pretty bad products, and Microsoft has a history of taking actions that would limit customer choice. Basically, I'm saying that the freedom to choose cannot be guaranteed under the rule of any one corporation.
Good point. I should have worded that a little differently; I don't see that Apple is trying to control the market with Safari, while I do see Microsoft working hard to force IE on the market. As I said at the beginning of my original comment, I believe comparing the evident business strategies is more beneficial to arguments than trying to compare similar actions that have been taken by different companies. Overall, I actually never use Safari (the only time I did was when I got my Mac, and I downloaded Firefox immediately afterward).
I guess my original point is that I never really looked at Microsoft including Internet Explorer with Windows as a problem; when I asked others what the problem was, their answers never seemed to make a lot of sense, so I don't really see that using the same argument against Safari is logical. However, I do see attempts to force customers to use a product over all others as a
You're welcome. I would like to say that your response to my earlier post didn't sound like an attack on me, just a counter balance to my arguments. I, too, avoid attacking people when I make responses. I tend to find that attacks on people generally say that the writer is speaking emotionally, and isn't thinking his comments through very thoroughly.
And the idea that IE is completely stable is, in my opinion, extremely laughable. As the AC stated, Firefox does have its problems, but contrary to the AC's statements, Mozilla doesn't just sit on their hands and ignore the issues; they may not respond immediately to every bug, but they don't rest on their laurels, either. Microsoft, on the other hand, sat on the buggy IE6 until Firefox began threatening its market dominance. IE7 may be better (though I'll never know, since I've now nearly detached myself from Microsoft completely, and have no intention of returning; I only VM Windows so I can use the WordPerfect 9 suite), but Microsoft lost my interest in finding out.
Apple produces quality products and has no desire to mar the image of their software products by allowing them to work on cheep hardware; the least expensive Apple products are still mid-range in terms of quality. I'm not saying Apple's perfect; they make plenty of mistakes, and Steve Jobs has made a good number of his own. But they don't do business with the objective of hurting the customer, who, in their eyes, is the actual consumer.
Microsoft on the other hand, produces poor products and has an intense desire to improve their image while putting forth the minimal effort to do so; the most expensive Microsoft products (with the possible exception of Excel, some of their games, like Freelancer, and some of their hardware, like their mice) are mid-range at best in terms of quality. They do business with the objective of controlling every market they enter with no regard for the consumer, only their immediate customers.
Comparing the way Apple bundles their software with the way Microsoft bundles their software ignores the real point; the arguments against Microsoft should be about the Microsoft method of doing business. The acts of hobbling IE in terms of compliance with legitimate standards and bundling it with Windows has been made as a deliberate move to force the market to use IE and accept its deficiencies as a standard. Apple's inclusion of Safari, which is compliant with legitimate standards, in Mac OS X doesn't even begin to compare, since that has been made as a move to give their customers a means of easily accessing the internet, and nothing more; they don't want to control the market with Safari. I can't see any real similarity in these two business models.
1. Install Ad Block Plus (very small download, even with a 56k connection), and No Script (which is just a little bit bigger; yes, it's three or four times the size of Ad Block, yes, but that's only about a hundred kilobytes or so).
2. Go into the Preferences for Ad Block Plus.
3. Add filters for myminicity.*, dwarfurl.*, and anything else that redirects you to myminicity.
The pages still load, but they do so very quickly, and No Script then prevents them from running their Java applets.
And by the way, HiggsBison is totally correct about his point regarding the term kernel; it's not only a key indicator of a junk argument, but it's also been hideously misused and misspelled. Kernel refers only to the core of an operating system, the part that sets the standard for hardware/software communication, manages memory, initiates applications, and performs a (preferably small) number of other critically vital system services (things that keep the computer running).
I agree completely; sounds a bit like Enron, though not on quite the same scale.
I completely agree with this point. No scripting language should ever be allowed full control of the user's computer. A good scripting language, in my opinion, should only be allowed to perform two IO functions, if it's given any IO control at all, and those are to open a document that the current application can use, and to save a document that's already open. I think everything else should be completely internal to the application.
Oh, and I should also point out that I completely agree that Visual Basic, QBasic, and every other variant of Microsoft Basic wasn't innovative. Just didn't think I should post this without making my opinion on that clear.
Please allow me to point out three major reasons the secretary might have hated switching to Word from WordPerfect:
1. Reveal Codes: This is the ultimate editing tool; reveal codes allows a WordPerfect user to see exactly why a document appears the way it does, showing every nuance of the document in a very simple, straightforward fashion. This was impossible to properly implement in Word because they use a document format that is makes adding codes to the text impossible; Word's format is 'object oriented', a text string followed by a mess object pointers (this also slows the editing process, since each object pointer has to be updated anytime text is added into the middle of the document). WordPerfect's file format, on the other hand, is stream based, the entire document is presented as a long data string, much like an HTML or XML document, with codes interlaced within the text, which makes editing much faster, since all you have to do to add text is just shove everything below it down (graphics and other objects are stored as separate objects, but since they don't have to be changed as the document is edited, editing remains quick and simple).
2. Specialized Formatting: WordPerfect included several codes that I've never seen in any other word processor, including 'Center on Margin', 'Right Flush', and two forms of 'Indent', which allow the user to make small changes to a line or a paragraph without changing any of the document settings. 'Center on Margin' and 'Right Flush' give you a single line of center justification and right justification without changing the justification settings, and both can be used on the same line, which gives you the ability to create three columns without changing any document settings or creating a table. These specialized formatting codes allow users to do simple things with their documents without wasting extra time fiddling with tab settings or creating a table; there are very, very few documents I create in WordPerfect that I don't use Center on Margin at least once in, and I often use Center on Margin in place of Center Justification.
3. The Mouse is *not* required, except for things that would be completely illogical to do without the mouse. I frequently use keyboard shortcuts to do all sorts of things, simply because it's easier, faster, and more efficient than screwing around with the mouse. Furthermore, you can make sweeping changes that effect the entire document simply by putting the cursor at the beginning and applying the change there; there's no need to waste time highlighting the entire document. From my somewhat limited experience with Word (I've detested every second I've had to deal with the app), I've had to use the mouse for a number of things that I'd just have used the keyboard for in WordPerfect, and find myself wasting a lot of time trying to cope with the numerous frustrations.
These three reasons, and possibly many others, may have been reasons for the secretary's frustrations and displeasure at being forced to switch to Word. I know these have been the most significant reasons I've found Word to be a substandard excuse for a word processor, and I know many others who refuse to make the switch for the same reasons.
That is true, but I find it ironic that Microsoft's stock took a significant dive at the beginning of the year, when they released Vista; I'm not exactly sure what's caused the surge in the last three months or so, but I seriously doubt it's directly related to Vista.
Most likely, the recent boost is related to how they claim Vista has been selling, which may be inaccurate (I've heard, through other comments on this site, that Microsoft claims all Windows sales since Vista's release as Windows sales, even if they're XP, and it's also possible they aren't giving us a fair assessment of Vista returns, or that those returning to XP aren't trying to, or aren't able to, get Vista refunds).
Regardless, Microsoft's best stock value was around January 2000, if I recall correctly, after which they dropped steeply, losing half their value in a very short time (a few months), and they've taken seven years to get back to a point where their value is a little better than half of that peak, which is not a very good overall track record, in my opinion.
That won't hose the system, it will only hose the current user's account, so you're wrong; even if the user in question is the only user on the system, the system itself won't be permanently damaged.
Actually, I'd think my sig explained it all. That, and the fact my jokes tend to be somewhat complex in nature, which again, recursively points back to my sig.
And e^(pi*i) is actually -1 + -0.000000000001267i, which is also not quite -1.
All instances of performing a fixed value compare of the X register (the efficient method is CPX #):
TXA (Transfer X to A)
CMP #$ (Compare A)
The Same goes for doing the same with the Y register (the efficient method is CPY #), with TXA replaced with TYA.
And then there was a section of code used to determine what function to call based on the highest set bit in a source value initially stored in A:
LDY #00 (clear the Y register) STA $ (store A in memory) loop: ASL $ (shift a byte in memory one bit to the left)
BCS exit (branch to the function call if the shifted bit was a binary 1)
INY (add one to Y)
INY
TYA
CMP #$
BCC loop (this repeated the loop until Y reached the ending value)
This function had quite a bit of overhead, as well; I simplified the entire subroutine (overhead and all) to a very simple function that does the exact same thing:
LDY #00
loop:
ASL A (shift A one bit left)
BCS exit
INX
CPY #
BCC loop
That said, I'm actually a very poor coder; my comments, when I remember to add them in, are decent, but most of my code somehow fails to do what I intend, and my debugging efforts fail far more often than they succeed.
Now all you need to do is slap your hand print on an astronavigation exam and sign it.
I'd like to say I completely agree with you; the constitution gives the federal government no power to regulate marriage, adoption, or even discrimination. The ninth and tenth amendments explicitly restrict the federal government from making laws that "deny or disparage the rights of the people" (ninth) and from using or regulating "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution" (tenth); read the actual amendments to see what I mean. Certain clauses in the constitution have been taken so far out of the context that the founding fathers envisioned (for example, 'promote the general Welfare' has been construed to mean providing social services to the public, but was seen as the founding fathers as providing for the needs of the country as a whole) that many of todays laws are strictly unconstitutional by any merit, yet are considered by many to be core principles upon which our nation was founded. Your statements here are strictly in keeping with what the Constitution says and means, and that is why I, myself, feel that Ron Paul is the best of the current breed of candidates.
At least on Ubuntu, 64 bit Firefox is now able to get Flash (another thread on this post indicated that it's running an encapsulated verion of the 64 bit Windows version). I cannot speak for any other Linux distro.
As you and others have pointed out, the definition of censor makes absolutely no mention of government, implicitly or explicitly; "empowered to judge" is a status that can be granted by anyone with sufficient power within a business, church, school, etc. Furthermore, the definition I have provided is a word for word copy of the text within the dictionary I cited; aside from the pronunciation note, I have excluded nothing of relevance (don't believe me, check it out yourself).
My experience with them was a land line my sister signed up for when she lived with my brother and me; when she moved out, we contacted Comcast to have the name on the account changed, and they gave us some bullshit about the issue requiring a "reinstall" that would cost us $20. We weren't about to pay that much for something that could be done in ten seconds, so we just left her name on the account. We finally left them when they decided that they would no longer support the analog service in our area, which was the only thing we have been able to afford at the present (unfortunately, we're now getting our service through Qwest, which is just as bad (their installer didn't even bother to check with us to see if the connection had been made, failed to connect the line to the house, and we ultimately had to fix their mistake ourselves; this led a friend of mine to describe their "Spirit of Service" as "We're the phone company, so f*** you" (I describe it as "Spirit of Disservice".