FWIW, the Mayans (or perhaps the Olmecs before them) independently invented a zero as a place holder in their base 20 system. The earliest recorded use of this is (I believe) about 36 BC, which may make it older than the (East!) Indian zero-as-a-placeholder.
But this isn't a spreadsheet, and there's no reason IMO not to wrap the text like every other word processing tool does.
I can see that under some circumstances, someone might prefer to run the text box on to additional pages. I can maybe even see that someone might possibly want to reduce the font size to make it fit on a single page, which is the other option. I was just astonished that wrapping was not even an option, since it's been the option in every other word processing-like program I've ever used. (Not programming code, of course, but OneNote is not intended as a programmer's editor.)
I don't think it's me. See the description here:
http://office.microsoft.com/en...
and notice in particular that it says "To shrink the content to make it fit the width of the specified paper size, select the Scale content to paper width check box." The only alternative seems to be to clip the content, i.e. the content does not fit the paper.
To demonstrate this, create a text box in OneNote that is fairly wide (wider than you think will fit on a printed page). Type a couple lines of text in, then print out the page. By default (with shrink off), the printout will clip the right-hand side; with shrink turned on, the font size for that text box will reduce.
I don't know anything about that church, but I know our church (in Maryland) does exactly that during the winter, along with a number of other churches in the area--each church takes a week. They drive the homeless to and from where ever they are during the day (some of the churches are out in the country), and provide breakfast.
OneNote seems to me to be one of the strangest pieces of software I've seen since MS-DOS used backslashes for directory separators.
Evidence: in OneNote, if a line width won't fit on the printed page, does it wrap like every other piece of software in the known universe? No! OneNote reduces the font size, until it's unreadable even by people who don't need reading glasses. Whose idea was that?
But I heat my water for *exactly* 71 seconds: the turntable takes 10 seconds to revolve once, and in order to have the mug wind up at the door, so it's easy to take out, I time it for a multiple of ten seconds...plus one second, because of the lag in startup of the turntable.
I just posted such a link (to "Watts Up With That?"). I think you'll find considerable science (and math) there, particularly in the blog entries. You will find some anti-science in the *comments*, but that's because (short of a handful of defamatory posts) comments are not censored, unlike some sites.
I pick http://wattsupwiththat.com/, which by readership is bigger than almost anything else, including the non-skeptic sites. There's a whole range of theories there, from "(alleged) global warming is due to mismeasurement" to "global warming is due to a variety of causes. But why don't you post there and ask?
And this is not perhaps the mindset of those who believe CO2 coming from the burning of fossil fuel is the only cause of global warming?
Actually, if you were to go to most skeptic websites, instead of pretending you know ex cathedra what they believe, you might find a whole host of reasons given for global warming: solar variation is only one of them.
Loss is irrelevant to the argument, because loss can occur to both paper copies and electronic copies. The argument is about what you can do with the media if it is *not* lost. Paper copies can be read for centuries (at least on acid-free paper). Hard drives probably last 10 to 30 years (we'll know in 30 years, although we can get some idea sooner by exposing hard drives to high temps etc.). CDs, surprisingly (ok, it surprises me; ymmv) don't last much longer (at least we don't think they do).
I'm a linguist. In our field, much of the data is irreplaceable: particularly data about languages that are going extinct, where it will be impossible to re-elicit the data. I know of a library that retains copies of every dictionary of African languages that gets published in paper. Those are safe for a century, longer if they've been printed on acid-free paper, and still longer if archival microfilms were made.
I also had the opportunity to work on an electronic copy of a dictionary. It had been "archived" on 3 1/2" floppies in the 90s. One of the floppies had since gone missing, and two of the remaining 12 or so were more or less unreadable. That was in the early 2000s; I'm not even sure where I'd go to get a computer with a floppy reader now. Hard drive cable formats change rapidly, too. It's *far* easier for electronic data to go bad than paper data, even CDs and DVDs are not permanent. On the other hand, it's *far* easier to copy electronic data. And for archival purposes, that's what is standardly done: the electronic data is routinely copied over every few years.
There's also an issue of data formats; data archived in old formats (old relational databases, for example) may be unuseable even if it's still readable. That's largely solvable, by picking appropriate archival formats; XML and Unicode are the current standards for at least lexicographic data. Archival PDF formats also exist, but it's harder to get computer-processable data out of them.
Slashdot Mirror
FWIW, the Mayans (or perhaps the Olmecs before them) independently invented a zero as a place holder in their base 20 system. The earliest recorded use of this is (I believe) about 36 BC, which may make it older than the (East!) Indian zero-as-a-placeholder.
But this isn't a spreadsheet, and there's no reason IMO not to wrap the text like every other word processing tool does. I can see that under some circumstances, someone might prefer to run the text box on to additional pages. I can maybe even see that someone might possibly want to reduce the font size to make it fit on a single page, which is the other option. I was just astonished that wrapping was not even an option, since it's been the option in every other word processing-like program I've ever used. (Not programming code, of course, but OneNote is not intended as a programmer's editor.)
I don't think it's me. See the description here: http://office.microsoft.com/en... and notice in particular that it says "To shrink the content to make it fit the width of the specified paper size, select the Scale content to paper width check box." The only alternative seems to be to clip the content, i.e. the content does not fit the paper. To demonstrate this, create a text box in OneNote that is fairly wide (wider than you think will fit on a printed page). Type a couple lines of text in, then print out the page. By default (with shrink off), the printout will clip the right-hand side; with shrink turned on, the font size for that text box will reduce.
Like the Edsel, in its time: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... Or tail fins and chrome: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
.ereht saw I A.S.
Like Yogi Berra said, when you see a fork, take it.
One word for you: Edsel.
I don't know anything about that church, but I know our church (in Maryland) does exactly that during the winter, along with a number of other churches in the area--each church takes a week. They drive the homeless to and from where ever they are during the day (some of the churches are out in the country), and provide breakfast.
OneNote seems to me to be one of the strangest pieces of software I've seen since MS-DOS used backslashes for directory separators. Evidence: in OneNote, if a line width won't fit on the printed page, does it wrap like every other piece of software in the known universe? No! OneNote reduces the font size, until it's unreadable even by people who don't need reading glasses. Whose idea was that?
Let me know if you find that interesting tech site. Sigh...
But I heat my water for *exactly* 71 seconds: the turntable takes 10 seconds to revolve once, and in order to have the mug wind up at the door, so it's easy to take out, I time it for a multiple of ten seconds...plus one second, because of the lag in startup of the turntable.
I just posted such a link (to "Watts Up With That?"). I think you'll find considerable science (and math) there, particularly in the blog entries. You will find some anti-science in the *comments*, but that's because (short of a handful of defamatory posts) comments are not censored, unlike some sites.
I pick http://wattsupwiththat.com/, which by readership is bigger than almost anything else, including the non-skeptic sites. There's a whole range of theories there, from "(alleged) global warming is due to mismeasurement" to "global warming is due to a variety of causes. But why don't you post there and ask?
And this is not perhaps the mindset of those who believe CO2 coming from the burning of fossil fuel is the only cause of global warming? Actually, if you were to go to most skeptic websites, instead of pretending you know ex cathedra what they believe, you might find a whole host of reasons given for global warming: solar variation is only one of them.
Ever heard of oxygen poisoning?
Says the man with the tinfoil hat.
No, I still see its smile
Yes, but shun the frumious Bandersnatch
Perhaps because they don't think you're right.
Loss is irrelevant to the argument, because loss can occur to both paper copies and electronic copies. The argument is about what you can do with the media if it is *not* lost. Paper copies can be read for centuries (at least on acid-free paper). Hard drives probably last 10 to 30 years (we'll know in 30 years, although we can get some idea sooner by exposing hard drives to high temps etc.). CDs, surprisingly (ok, it surprises me; ymmv) don't last much longer (at least we don't think they do).
I'm a linguist. In our field, much of the data is irreplaceable: particularly data about languages that are going extinct, where it will be impossible to re-elicit the data. I know of a library that retains copies of every dictionary of African languages that gets published in paper. Those are safe for a century, longer if they've been printed on acid-free paper, and still longer if archival microfilms were made. I also had the opportunity to work on an electronic copy of a dictionary. It had been "archived" on 3 1/2" floppies in the 90s. One of the floppies had since gone missing, and two of the remaining 12 or so were more or less unreadable. That was in the early 2000s; I'm not even sure where I'd go to get a computer with a floppy reader now. Hard drive cable formats change rapidly, too. It's *far* easier for electronic data to go bad than paper data, even CDs and DVDs are not permanent. On the other hand, it's *far* easier to copy electronic data. And for archival purposes, that's what is standardly done: the electronic data is routinely copied over every few years. There's also an issue of data formats; data archived in old formats (old relational databases, for example) may be unuseable even if it's still readable. That's largely solvable, by picking appropriate archival formats; XML and Unicode are the current standards for at least lexicographic data. Archival PDF formats also exist, but it's harder to get computer-processable data out of them.
"It's QUITE obvious the NSA was spying on people/countries at the behest of corporations to further their economic policies."
You have evidence, or just an opinion?
"Duh."
Oh, sorry, I missed this. Evidence, obviously.
I think Arthur C Clark anticipated you.
"I'm sorry, Dave, I can't do that."
Along with communication satellites and
David, we're having hash tonight. Again.
Like Denmark's foreign policy, perhaps? Which keeps their embassies safe. Oh, wait...