Word implicitly forces you to use styles when you are doing numbered lists (especially outline numbering)
Numbered lists work, but they are idiosyncratic as hell. You absolutely must use styles, because once you get your styles just right, you can then rely upon them.
Word sucks when it comes to deciphering just what the formatting is in any one place in your document. You've just got to abandon that paradigm. Just think in terms of character styles and paragraph styles. Format the styles to be the precise way you want them. When you have a string of text or a paragraph that doesn't conform to what you think it should be, impose your predefined styles upon it. That's the 'Word way,' for good or bad.
I'm a lawyer. My best, by far, experience was with WP 5.1 for DOS. It was fast and I could make it do anything I wanted it to do via the macros. I really liked it, though, when I understood the merge codes. I was able to make any kind of form that I wanted using macros and merge codes.
Word is genetically malformed ecoli. It's "form fields" are kludgy crap. It's "fields" are a sloppy afterbirth. Their merge process is grossly incomplete. Using a template with macros to create another template is a recipe for a brain seizure. It is garbage created by committee. It's about as unified as Afghanistan.
Sure, you can do anything you want with Word--but it won't be simple, it won't be well received by other users, and you'll have to study how you did something before you ever replicate it.
I use the damn program because my employer is welded to it. For some reason they are in love with paying the extreme price that MS demands.
And I understand the object model, but I still hate it. Programming in Word should be easy by now, but it's not. It's basically the same as it was when VBA was brought into Word.
The only satisfaction is that open source WILL kill word. And I will be glad. And I will still look back fondly on WP 5.1.
No. It wouldn't be considered theft--or a trespass. That's an easy call.
It MIGHT be considered a "taking" within 5th Amendment jurisprudence. The 5th Amendment says that you can't take a person's property without just compensation. I'm not going to do the research for a/. posting that even I would urge not to be taken seriously, but the law's not absolutely clear on this.
If the cops rip your house apart pursuant to a judicially authorized search warrant, that is a legitimate exercise of the police power. The government may do that without compensation (in many jurisdictions) without offending the Constitution, because you are not entitled to just compensation for police power activity (think the destruction of your neighbor's house to save everybody else's house in a big fire). Many jurisdictions offer compensation for this kind of stuff because they dont' want the electorate totally pissed at them. But compensation is optional.
Now, if the cops have no probable cause and no reasonable suspicion that the target is engaging in criminal activity, has evidence of it, etc., then it may be debatable whether or not the FBI is engaging in a legitimate exercise of the "police power." This might form the basis of a legal "taking" argument because the government isn't exercising the police power--it's just plain taking.
People who are "taken" from are entitled to sue for just compensation (and if they win they get attorney fees). The FBI didnt' do much damage, but they did assert control over the person's automobile and did take power from that automobile. Even de minimis takings are takings. It could be quite a class action lawsuit (and it may very well turn out to be so).
No wonder the national deficit is getting insanely huge. Investigations of people like this guy, multiplied over and over, are phenomenally expensive. The United States is chasing its tail and it's pitifully embarrassing.
Facebook and twitter and the internet are ways to send information over landlines and airwaves. To hype them into something "revolutionary," is to make the same mistake that caused the first internet bubble.
They are powerful communication tools though, because they facilitate encryption and transfer of huge amounts of data.
The civil rights movement is a bad analogy. The NAACP and the SCLC never assumed power or tried to assume power. Their primary objective was to shame the rest of American society into becoming a free and democratic society. With good communication tools, I think that could have been accomplished with a much looser coalition equipped with modern communication technology.
You do need a disciplined movement to take over power, though, and facebook and twitter will result in a lot of schism and faction.
You have it bass ackwards. If you can prove a pattern of recklessness, you can jack up the damages.
Using prior recklessness to prove present recklessness is problematical. Read Federal Evidence Rule 404(b). If you could get the evidence in (a considerable 'if'), it would make the trial longer, not shorter. No lawyer is going to leave evidence on the table if they can help it.
"Homeland Security" was sold as a defense of the "Homeland" against external enemies. Now we're seeing Homeland Security being used to investigate political activities of U.S. Citizens.
This is making me think of Flint in 1933. That's not good.
No. You obviously don't get it. The free market is "magical," as Ronald Reagan once said. The free market takes care of everybody's needs.
No big government is needed, because we can trust big business to take care of us. Don't worry about the minimum wage, because the free market will provide what you need.
What? You're not cutting it? It's your fault, you should be succeeding. If you're not, there is something wrong with you.
Trust in the Free Market! Big Business is your Friend!
The guy really has a secret plan to sell murder permits. THAT would raise a lot of revenue for Nevada.
If somebody I cared about got killed by a speeder with a license to speed, I'd think long and hard about taking out my own permit to wipe out that wacko.
The judges will HATE dealing with porno cases. They will want to make them go away. Judges can make things "go away" very easily. One erroneous fact finding can kill a case dead--permanently and totally dead. They can also cut all the legal breaks in favor of dismissing a lawsuit. We place a lot of trust in our judges and sometimes they betray us. A good example can be found in the judges in the South tasked with enforcing the "separate but equal" laws. They enforced the 'separate' part, but the 'equal' part got lost.
Even though the judges will want to make the porno cases go away, they won't be able to treat them too rudely (because the court rules and legal principles in effect are supposed to be "content neutral"). This tension might manifest itself in the porno cases in cool and interesting ways.
Porno is the big sleeping giant that the big media ignores. If they behave like pricks (or like the RIAA), the judges are going to go all hairy on their ass. When mainstream media comes around and tries to do the same bad things that the porno media wasn't allowed to do, the Courts will be hamstrung by their need to appear consistent. This presents some pretty cool ideas.
If you want to support internet freedom, support the Larry Flynts of the world in their efforts to protect their ultra-gross porno copyrights. You want them to be mean and brutal in the glorious tradition of the RIAA. Support them on appeal--all the way to the bitter end. This would be a legal version of a sapping attack. The judges will cut the filth-purveyors the absolute least slack possible. This will make for a better and more fair copyright law--and will have the humorous by product of watching the RIAA support the filthiest porn purveyors in the appellate courts.
Abstainers may include teetotalers who used to abuse. Those people may have sustained damage from other drugs such as nicotine. Abstainers may also include people with bad health.
Summary irresponsibly projects too much from the study.
Our military is being wasted as an occupying army.
In a war (a real war) the dumbass powerpointers would have their sorry asses shuttled out of the way. In Afghanistan, they're running the show. That's a sign just how messed up it is over there.
Slashdot Mirror
That is the funniest stupid thing I have ever read on /. You should be modded up into the stratosphere!
Bravo!
Word implicitly forces you to use styles when you are doing numbered lists (especially outline numbering)
Numbered lists work, but they are idiosyncratic as hell. You absolutely must use styles, because once you get your styles just right, you can then rely upon them.
Word sucks when it comes to deciphering just what the formatting is in any one place in your document. You've just got to abandon that paradigm. Just think in terms of character styles and paragraph styles. Format the styles to be the precise way you want them. When you have a string of text or a paragraph that doesn't conform to what you think it should be, impose your predefined styles upon it. That's the 'Word way,' for good or bad.
I'm a lawyer. My best, by far, experience was with WP 5.1 for DOS. It was fast and I could make it do anything I wanted it to do via the macros. I really liked it, though, when I understood the merge codes. I was able to make any kind of form that I wanted using macros and merge codes.
Word is genetically malformed ecoli. It's "form fields" are kludgy crap. It's "fields" are a sloppy afterbirth. Their merge process is grossly incomplete. Using a template with macros to create another template is a recipe for a brain seizure. It is garbage created by committee. It's about as unified as Afghanistan.
Sure, you can do anything you want with Word--but it won't be simple, it won't be well received by other users, and you'll have to study how you did something before you ever replicate it.
I use the damn program because my employer is welded to it. For some reason they are in love with paying the extreme price that MS demands.
And I understand the object model, but I still hate it. Programming in Word should be easy by now, but it's not. It's basically the same as it was when VBA was brought into Word.
The only satisfaction is that open source WILL kill word. And I will be glad. And I will still look back fondly on WP 5.1.
Who's not being creative enough?
Plant it on top of Mt. Rainier.
No. It wouldn't be considered theft--or a trespass. That's an easy call.
It MIGHT be considered a "taking" within 5th Amendment jurisprudence. The 5th Amendment says that you can't take a person's property without just compensation. I'm not going to do the research for a /. posting that even I would urge not to be taken seriously, but the law's not absolutely clear on this.
If the cops rip your house apart pursuant to a judicially authorized search warrant, that is a legitimate exercise of the police power. The government may do that without compensation (in many jurisdictions) without offending the Constitution, because you are not entitled to just compensation for police power activity (think the destruction of your neighbor's house to save everybody else's house in a big fire). Many jurisdictions offer compensation for this kind of stuff because they dont' want the electorate totally pissed at them. But compensation is optional.
Now, if the cops have no probable cause and no reasonable suspicion that the target is engaging in criminal activity, has evidence of it, etc., then it may be debatable whether or not the FBI is engaging in a legitimate exercise of the "police power." This might form the basis of a legal "taking" argument because the government isn't exercising the police power--it's just plain taking.
People who are "taken" from are entitled to sue for just compensation (and if they win they get attorney fees). The FBI didnt' do much damage, but they did assert control over the person's automobile and did take power from that automobile. Even de minimis takings are takings. It could be quite a class action lawsuit (and it may very well turn out to be so).
No wonder the national deficit is getting insanely huge. Investigations of people like this guy, multiplied over and over, are phenomenally expensive. The United States is chasing its tail and it's pitifully embarrassing.
Pay me money to certify your computer, or you can't access the Internet. I won't guarantee anything, mind you.
Are you NUTS? Israel spies on the US like CRAZY. They'd be crazy not to.
Keep Pollard the traitor locked up!
Facebook and twitter and the internet are ways to send information over landlines and airwaves. To hype them into something "revolutionary," is to make the same mistake that caused the first internet bubble.
They are powerful communication tools though, because they facilitate encryption and transfer of huge amounts of data.
The civil rights movement is a bad analogy. The NAACP and the SCLC never assumed power or tried to assume power. Their primary objective was to shame the rest of American society into becoming a free and democratic society. With good communication tools, I think that could have been accomplished with a much looser coalition equipped with modern communication technology.
You do need a disciplined movement to take over power, though, and facebook and twitter will result in a lot of schism and faction.
And down and down in scope and scale, as well.
It is a beautiful thing to read all the OUTRAGE over software piracy. Don't get that so much when the topic is music piracy.
Must depend upon whose ox is being gored!
You have it bass ackwards. If you can prove a pattern of recklessness, you can jack up the damages.
Using prior recklessness to prove present recklessness is problematical. Read Federal Evidence Rule 404(b). If you could get the evidence in (a considerable 'if'), it would make the trial longer, not shorter. No lawyer is going to leave evidence on the table if they can help it.
"The deep seated Russian drive . . .."
versus
The compelling urge for a simplistic solution.
You, sir (or ma'am), are a scholar and a gentleman (or gentlewoman).
I appreciate your insight.
That's true, but plants turn carbon from the air into a solid. If my solar panels could manufacture carbon fiber bicycles, I'd be really happy.
If you have a monopoly, or a near monopoly, you can get away with that.
Shouldn't the companies be free to collude to avoid paying higher wages? Isn't that what capitalism is all about?
Government should be small so that it won't interfere with the rights of these legal corporate "persons."
If the employees don't like it they can leave. It's a free market!!!
When the companies get big enough, they will take over the day to day power in our lives. Then we won't even need a government!
The tea party dream!
"Homeland Security" was sold as a defense of the "Homeland" against external enemies. Now we're seeing Homeland Security being used to investigate political activities of U.S. Citizens.
This is making me think of Flint in 1933. That's not good.
No. You obviously don't get it. The free market is "magical," as Ronald Reagan once said. The free market takes care of everybody's needs.
No big government is needed, because we can trust big business to take care of us. Don't worry about the minimum wage, because the free market will provide what you need.
What? You're not cutting it? It's your fault, you should be succeeding. If you're not, there is something wrong with you.
Trust in the Free Market! Big Business is your Friend!
The guy really has a secret plan to sell murder permits. THAT would raise a lot of revenue for Nevada.
If somebody I cared about got killed by a speeder with a license to speed, I'd think long and hard about taking out my own permit to wipe out that wacko.
The judges will HATE dealing with porno cases. They will want to make them go away. Judges can make things "go away" very easily. One erroneous fact finding can kill a case dead--permanently and totally dead. They can also cut all the legal breaks in favor of dismissing a lawsuit. We place a lot of trust in our judges and sometimes they betray us. A good example can be found in the judges in the South tasked with enforcing the "separate but equal" laws. They enforced the 'separate' part, but the 'equal' part got lost.
Even though the judges will want to make the porno cases go away, they won't be able to treat them too rudely (because the court rules and legal principles in effect are supposed to be "content neutral"). This tension might manifest itself in the porno cases in cool and interesting ways.
Porno is the big sleeping giant that the big media ignores. If they behave like pricks (or like the RIAA), the judges are going to go all hairy on their ass. When mainstream media comes around and tries to do the same bad things that the porno media wasn't allowed to do, the Courts will be hamstrung by their need to appear consistent. This presents some pretty cool ideas.
If you want to support internet freedom, support the Larry Flynts of the world in their efforts to protect their ultra-gross porno copyrights. You want them to be mean and brutal in the glorious tradition of the RIAA. Support them on appeal--all the way to the bitter end. This would be a legal version of a sapping attack. The judges will cut the filth-purveyors the absolute least slack possible. This will make for a better and more fair copyright law--and will have the humorous by product of watching the RIAA support the filthiest porn purveyors in the appellate courts.
It could get pretty absurd.
Wonderful irony. Julian, the celebrity-seeking exposer, is now himself exposed.
Bad manners beget bad manners.
Abstainers may include teetotalers who used to abuse. Those people may have sustained damage from other drugs such as nicotine. Abstainers may also include people with bad health.
Summary irresponsibly projects too much from the study.
What would the asteroid miners ship back?
Our military is being wasted as an occupying army.
In a war (a real war) the dumbass powerpointers would have their sorry asses shuttled out of the way. In Afghanistan, they're running the show. That's a sign just how messed up it is over there.
Yeah. Like more murders lead to better murder investigations.