Personally, I use OOo. When someone absolutely insists on a Word document, I save to.doc but don't tell them it isn't really Word. So far, no one has complained about problems opening them.
Personally I use MS Office because I have to deal with customer-supplied templates that require VBA. Which actually renders the original question meaningless, as none of us have the opportunity to do a proper analysis of the business in question.
Also, don't compare moving to OpenOffice to Office 2000... Compare it to Office 2007
I think I agree, but I'm confused by the phrasing.
I'd say, compare the transition from Office 2000/2003 to Office2007 to the transition from Office 2000/2003 to OO.o. Users are likely to find the user interface transition much smoother to OO.o, and either transition introduces some file compatibility problems.
In my experience, OO.o handles damaged MS Office files far better than MS Office does. I've never known it to fail to open an MS Office 2003 or earlier file, but the formatting can be changed, and of course any VBA in the document is going to be a problem.
Your retort missed the the central emphasis of my statement:
1. Women as a group cannot be more intelligent than men due to their classification.
2. Intelligence is not an attribute of sex.
But, given that I never said or iplied that women are more intelligent than men (or men more intelligent than women), how is that relevant? Who did you say was trolling?
Furthermore, you do not know most women and therefore cannot assert that you are aware of the intelligence of most women. For all you know, the intelligence of most women could be dwarfed by my towering intellect
Which is why I have been careful to use hedges such as "appear" rather than make categorical statements. You may indeed have a towering intellect, and simply be remarkably skilled at hiding it.
Also, it is not possible that a generalized group of people can be smarter than another, only due to the fact that they simply classify similarly, when no attributes in said classification include intelligence.
Indeed. But had you read what I wrote you would note that I claimed that "most women" (a generalised group) are smarter than you (a specific individual, not a generalised group) appear to be. An appearance you have just reinforced, because it is indeed possible for most of a group to be smarter than a specific identified individual.
getting worse and worse until the women win. Do not kid yourself -- they will win.
If they do, they will find that they have lost, too, because the sexes need each other. Fortunately, most women are smarter than you appear to be, and already realise that.
A friend of our family used to run a chip shop in Aberdeen; he sold deep-fried Mars bars, and there was a significant demand (from the native Scots, not all the migrant oil workers). Yes, it ruins the fat; that was reflected in the price. Deep fried pizza was popular, too.
Yep. And when I was in Orlando, FLA it was all but impossible to find a breakfast that wasn't loaded with sugar: the cereal came loaded with sugar, the porridge came loaded with syrup, the bacon had syrup on it, and so on. Which probably tells us the exactly same thing.
No free society can allow for censorship. Stand up for your rights people!
This is what we call the totalitarian underwear creepies, just take a little piece of material creeping in your crack - one at a time - and people don't notice what happens til they sneeze. And in the UK they have been chipping away at the expectations of freedom and privacy for a while and getting people used to living with greater intrusions upon their freedoms and privacy all the time.
Years ago, if we would have suggested that one day the government would demand to block access to content and just blatantly censor anything it pleases and monitor all of your communications, Rob Malda is a fucking asshole, you would have been called a nutty conspiracy theorist.
Nice rant, but historially inaccurate. I am old enough to remember when the government insisted on approving in advance every play performed on the British stage. Ho approval, no show. We do have less censorship than there was in my parent's time, although it's a constant battle to keep it that way.
This isn't really an IWF issue. The IWF has only stated that some particular images are potentially illegal in the UK. Ok, that's problematic without it being tested in court, but it's not the IWF who have had the whole Wayback machine blocked, it's a couple of particularly clueless ISPs who can't tell the difference between an image on a site and the site itself. The RA does a clumsy job of trying to make it the IWF's fault that those ISPs are clueless.
Rubbish. My kids are being raised by us, and all the other kids I know are being raised by their parents. Yes, they have TV, computer & video games, but I keep track of what the kids are being fed by those routes. Yes, there is a very small minority of parents who don't bother, and who get the headlines, but tarring all parents with that brush is plain knee-jerk ignorance.
The problem is with the statement "Just because people associate a word with something other than its meaning...". What people associate a word with is the meaning, it can't be "something other than its meaning".
In Galloway in Scotland, the local tourist board is trying to set up a dark sky park. The area that they're planning to open it is apparently the darkest place in Europe.
I can believe that. I was there for New Year, and the view of the night sky was stunning.
That's probably true, but that makes me wonder, why are you using domestic (like kitchen?) appliances in the dark?
The network drive that I use for backup at home has a huge blue LED light that flashes to show it's working. It needs to be plugged in to the router, which is in my bedroom, and the bright blue flashing light was really annoying. Rather than redo my house's telephone and ethernet cabling, I just covered it with a few layers of duct tape. There is just no reason for the light to be blue -- or for that matter for the light to be there at all: my computer tells me if it can't access a network drive!
The headline is misleading. There's nothing special about the R language, except perhaps that it's reasonably close to the mathematical notation that it's target users are likely to be familiar with, so you could view it as a sort of domain-specific language. The reason R is used is that it comes with a very rich library of high-end mathematical functions, so the analysts don't have to reinvent the wheel by writing their own symbolic factorisation function or their own Wilcoxson rank sum test with continuity correction function. So it's not really the language that attracts people to R, just as it's not the language that attracts people to Microsoft Excel or to OpenOffice.org calc (who would choose a product because they liked VBA or OpenOffice.org Basic?) Rather, it's the combination of the capabilities of the whole package and the zero price tag that people like.
But the amendment wouldn't just apply to Federal Government officials, would it? It would apply just as much to State officials who abused their power in ways that violate the constitution.
Slashdot Mirror
Personally, I use OOo. When someone absolutely insists on a Word document, I save to .doc but don't tell them it isn't really Word. So far, no one has complained about problems opening them.
Personally I use MS Office because I have to deal with customer-supplied templates that require VBA. Which actually renders the original question meaningless, as none of us have the opportunity to do a proper analysis of the business in question.
Also, don't compare moving to OpenOffice to Office 2000... Compare it to Office 2007
I think I agree, but I'm confused by the phrasing.
I'd say, compare the transition from Office 2000/2003 to Office2007 to the transition from Office 2000/2003 to OO.o. Users are likely to find the user interface transition much smoother to OO.o, and either transition introduces some file compatibility problems.
In my experience, OO.o handles damaged MS Office files far better than MS Office does. I've never known it to fail to open an MS Office 2003 or earlier file, but the formatting can be changed, and of course any VBA in the document is going to be a problem.
As the inevitable cuts came, who do you think hung on to their job?
The head of human resources.
Your retort missed the the central emphasis of my statement:
1. Women as a group cannot be more intelligent than men due to their classification. 2. Intelligence is not an attribute of sex.
But, given that I never said or iplied that women are more intelligent than men (or men more intelligent than women), how is that relevant? Who did you say was trolling?
Furthermore, you do not know most women and therefore cannot assert that you are aware of the intelligence of most women. For all you know, the intelligence of most women could be dwarfed by my towering intellect
Which is why I have been careful to use hedges such as "appear" rather than make categorical statements. You may indeed have a towering intellect, and simply be remarkably skilled at hiding it.
Um -- between the basement and the D&D store is just some internet. Why do you call it "bright"?
Also, it is not possible that a generalized group of people can be smarter than another, only due to the fact that they simply classify similarly, when no attributes in said classification include intelligence.
Indeed. But had you read what I wrote you would note that I claimed that "most women" (a generalised group) are smarter than you (a specific individual, not a generalised group) appear to be. An appearance you have just reinforced, because it is indeed possible for most of a group to be smarter than a specific identified individual.
getting worse and worse until the women win. Do not kid yourself -- they will win.
If they do, they will find that they have lost, too, because the sexes need each other. Fortunately, most women are smarter than you appear to be, and already realise that.
Absolutely not -- it completely ruins whisky.
A friend of our family used to run a chip shop in Aberdeen; he sold deep-fried Mars bars, and there was a significant demand (from the native Scots, not all the migrant oil workers). Yes, it ruins the fat; that was reflected in the price. Deep fried pizza was popular, too.
In the UK, they eat fried Mars bars and the like.
Only in Scotland, not all of the UK.
I think that's telling something... ;)
Yep. And when I was in Orlando, FLA it was all but impossible to find a breakfast that wasn't loaded with sugar: the cereal came loaded with sugar, the porridge came loaded with syrup, the bacon had syrup on it, and so on. Which probably tells us the exactly same thing.
No free society can allow for censorship. Stand up for your rights people!
This is what we call the totalitarian underwear creepies, just take a little piece of material creeping in your crack - one at a time - and people don't notice what happens til they sneeze. And in the UK they have been chipping away at the expectations of freedom and privacy for a while and getting people used to living with greater intrusions upon their freedoms and privacy all the time.
Years ago, if we would have suggested that one day the government would demand to block access to content and just blatantly censor anything it pleases and monitor all of your communications, Rob Malda is a fucking asshole, you would have been called a nutty conspiracy theorist.
Nice rant, but historially inaccurate. I am old enough to remember when the government insisted on approving in advance every play performed on the British stage. Ho approval, no show. We do have less censorship than there was in my parent's time, although it's a constant battle to keep it that way.
This isn't really an IWF issue. The IWF has only stated that some particular images are potentially illegal in the UK. Ok, that's problematic without it being tested in court, but it's not the IWF who have had the whole Wayback machine blocked, it's a couple of particularly clueless ISPs who can't tell the difference between an image on a site and the site itself. The RA does a clumsy job of trying to make it the IWF's fault that those ISPs are clueless.
Rubbish. My kids are being raised by us, and all the other kids I know are being raised by their parents. Yes, they have TV, computer & video games, but I keep track of what the kids are being fed by those routes. Yes, there is a very small minority of parents who don't bother, and who get the headlines, but tarring all parents with that brush is plain knee-jerk ignorance.
It would invalidate the warranty, though.
The problem is with the statement "Just because people associate a word with something other than its meaning...". What people associate a word with is the meaning, it can't be "something other than its meaning".
Just because people associate a word with something other than its meaning doesn't mean we should stop using the word.
Er, how do you think language develops?
In Galloway in Scotland, the local tourist board is trying to set up a dark sky park. The area that they're planning to open it is apparently the darkest place in Europe.
I can believe that. I was there for New Year, and the view of the night sky was stunning.
That's probably true, but that makes me wonder, why are you using domestic (like kitchen?) appliances in the dark?
The network drive that I use for backup at home has a huge blue LED light that flashes to show it's working. It needs to be plugged in to the router, which is in my bedroom, and the bright blue flashing light was really annoying. Rather than redo my house's telephone and ethernet cabling, I just covered it with a few layers of duct tape. There is just no reason for the light to be blue -- or for that matter for the light to be there at all: my computer tells me if it can't access a network drive!
The headline is misleading. There's nothing special about the R language, except perhaps that it's reasonably close to the mathematical notation that it's target users are likely to be familiar with, so you could view it as a sort of domain-specific language. The reason R is used is that it comes with a very rich library of high-end mathematical functions, so the analysts don't have to reinvent the wheel by writing their own symbolic factorisation function or their own Wilcoxson rank sum test with continuity correction function. So it's not really the language that attracts people to R, just as it's not the language that attracts people to Microsoft Excel or to OpenOffice.org calc (who would choose a product because they liked VBA or OpenOffice.org Basic?) Rather, it's the combination of the capabilities of the whole package and the zero price tag that people like.
It could be worse. Try searching for the natural language processing system "Lolita".
But the amendment wouldn't just apply to Federal Government officials, would it? It would apply just as much to State officials who abused their power in ways that violate the constitution.
The only compromise that is reasonable is a limited government.
And who has the power to impose such limits? Only the government. Damn.
There's a huge difference between trusting him and trusting him more than Bush.
Er, yes, and who would need to vote for the amendment? The very people it would criminalise. Do you expect turkeys to vote for Thanksgiving?