> the ribbon all it does is change the shape of the menu system of earlier versions of office.
Unfortunately, no. Someone decided which menu items I should want, and put those on the ribbon. But in fact, 90% of the items on the ribbon are things I never want to run from a menu (Copy? That's what God made c for. Paste? . Mailings? Can you say 1980s?) And many of the things I do want, and which were in the menus, are no longer in the ribbon. The menu was completely customizable.
Yes, after the first three year fiasco they made it possible to add new commands to the ribbon. But many things on the ribbon are not deletable, so I still have to sort through all those danged hieroglyphics (or squint at the tiny English labels that some, but not all, of those hieroglyphics have).
And now if they'd only announce that they were allowing users of MsOffice to use menus instead of the awful Ribbon. I could get MsOffice2007 for a very cheap price, but instead I'm using LibreOffice, because it still has menus.
(Actually, I'm starting to use LaTeX more and more, because I can't get section numbering to work right on MsWord or Libre's Writer. But it's trivial in LaTeX.)
We may do project often, but that doesn't mean it's reliable. I recall reading in the 1960s that by projecting the speed that mankind had been able to travel from ancient times (~8 mph running) through the domestication of the horse, the invention of the automobile, the airplane, jet airplanes, and finally space travel (IIRC, the article was written around the time of Gagarin), we could predict that we would invent faster-than-light travel sometime soon. I forget what the exact predicted date was, but it is now long past. And yet we still await Zefram Cochrane.
Not true. I'm fairly conservative (not Tea Party). I read WaPost on-line nearly every day (of course, I live just ten miles outside the Beltway, but still), occasionally the NYTimes (less so now that they only let you read ten articles a month w/o paying), and occasionally glance at Slate, which I suspect is far to the left of either. I think I could count the number of times I've been on Fox News' website on one hand with most of my fingers left over. And I listen to NPR some. I once listened to some right-wing commentator on the radio, but the call-ins were just awful. (All talk shows have their occasional weirdos calling in, but this was consistent.)
So no, at least in my case my political standing is not at all obvious from my choice of media.
BTW, I don't see much *news* on any of these sites, way too much fluff. I think VOA on the web has far more news than you can find on the front "page" of any of the above news sites.
Oh, and I used to go to Google News daily, before they messed it up and ignored all user input.
"...this monotone nonsense that just blends into everything." Are you referring to the fact that looking at an MsOffice doc, you can't tell whether it has the focus or not? I think the top bar changes slightly, but ever so slightly; I have to look at the other apps I have open to see if any of them has focus. If they don't, then I assume Word (or whatever) has focus.
Not sure if this is what the OP is looking for, but my favorite is the Ethiopian calendar (no, I'm not Ethiopian). It's about seven years behind us, which meant that they avoided the Y2K catastrophe until 2007.
Reminds me of when Google introduced its new version of News a couple-three years back. There were thousands of messages on its user forum deploring the new interface, and asking for the old one back. I never saw a single message in favor of the new version. (Ok, there was one, but it was tongue-in-cheek.)
FWIW, Google never did go back to the old version, despite its unanimous rejection on the part of users.
IANL, but I believe that is incorrect. A patent application (at least in the US) only requires a "description of how to make and use the invention that must provide sufficient detail for a person skilled in the art (i.e., the relevant area of technology) to make and use the invention." That doesn't mean the patent holder needs to have that skill, nor that the patent holder needs to have built it or contracted someone to build it.
Doesn't Plato own the patent for projecting images on the walls of CAVEs? Although I think Socrates could claim prior art. Also, their technique didn't require head tracking, the users' heads were strapped in so they couldn't move--they were indeed limited to peripheral vision for seeing anything not in front of them.
>... that "fossilized" phoneme swap was carried over into Classical Latin, even after the > change in accent patterns, and even still occurs in a lot of English borrowings from Latin... > indicates that much of phonological theory is bunkum. Clearly, Modern English > are learning fossilized forms, not putting "de-" and "fac" together, calculating the > pre-Classical Latin stress and then its phonological effect
Untrue. Cherokee is still spoken in western North Carolina (as well as Oklahoma), and the Mayan languages (Tzeltal, Chol, Quiche, Q'anjob'al, and dozens of others) are still spoken by millions of speakers in southern Mexico, Guatemala, and down into Honduras and Belize--including what appears to be the place where they originated, in what is now northern Guatemala.
You obviously don't know what you're talking about. To paraphrase Dr. Henry Jones, Sr., it tells me that goose-stepping morons like yourself should try reading the Bible instead of spouting off in your ignorance.
Ok, that's not a very good paraphrase. But still, the OP's religion says no such thing as you claim, nor did Jesus threaten anyone in the way you claim.
The problem is not that at any given moment, a planet in this cluster would be inimical to life. The problem is that (as I understand it) planets there do not have stable orbits. Going from cold enough to freeze CO2, for example, to hot enough to melt lead is not likely to lead to stable atmospheres, or even any atmosphere.
Slashdot Mirror
How many of you does it take to change a light bulb, and does it matter whether the light bulb wants to change?
> the ribbon all it does is change the shape of the menu system of earlier versions of office.
Unfortunately, no. Someone decided which menu items I should want, and put those on the ribbon. But in fact, 90% of the items on the ribbon are things I never want to run from a menu (Copy? That's what God made c for. Paste? . Mailings? Can you say 1980s?) And many of the things I do want, and which were in the menus, are no longer in the ribbon. The menu was completely customizable.
Yes, after the first three year fiasco they made it possible to add new commands to the ribbon. But many things on the ribbon are not deletable, so I still have to sort through all those danged hieroglyphics (or squint at the tiny English labels that some, but not all, of those hieroglyphics have).
Why couldn't the car users back in the late 50s grok that tail fins were the greatest idea to hit automobiles since the Edsel?
Oh wait...
And now if they'd only announce that they were allowing users of MsOffice to use menus instead of the awful Ribbon. I could get MsOffice2007 for a very cheap price, but instead I'm using LibreOffice, because it still has menus.
(Actually, I'm starting to use LaTeX more and more, because I can't get section numbering to work right on MsWord or Libre's Writer. But it's trivial in LaTeX.)
No, the youtube video is here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVE-7x9Usvw
We may do project often, but that doesn't mean it's reliable. I recall reading in the 1960s that by projecting the speed that mankind had been able to travel from ancient times (~8 mph running) through the domestication of the horse, the invention of the automobile, the airplane, jet airplanes, and finally space travel (IIRC, the article was written around the time of Gagarin), we could predict that we would invent faster-than-light travel sometime soon. I forget what the exact predicted date was, but it is now long past. And yet we still await Zefram Cochrane.
Not true. I'm fairly conservative (not Tea Party). I read WaPost on-line nearly every day (of course, I live just ten miles outside the Beltway, but still), occasionally the NYTimes (less so now that they only let you read ten articles a month w/o paying), and occasionally glance at Slate, which I suspect is far to the left of either. I think I could count the number of times I've been on Fox News' website on one hand with most of my fingers left over. And I listen to NPR some. I once listened to some right-wing commentator on the radio, but the call-ins were just awful. (All talk shows have their occasional weirdos calling in, but this was consistent.)
So no, at least in my case my political standing is not at all obvious from my choice of media.
BTW, I don't see much *news* on any of these sites, way too much fluff. I think VOA on the web has far more news than you can find on the front "page" of any of the above news sites.
Oh, and I used to go to Google News daily, before they messed it up and ignored all user input.
"...a really fast old woman." You mean the one from Pasadena? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXgVlRmziwQ
"...this monotone nonsense that just blends into everything." Are you referring to the fact that looking at an MsOffice doc, you can't tell whether it has the focus or not? I think the top bar changes slightly, but ever so slightly; I have to look at the other apps I have open to see if any of them has focus. If they don't, then I assume Word (or whatever) has focus.
I'm sure news reporters like to put a different spin on this.
Not sure if this is what the OP is looking for, but my favorite is the Ethiopian calendar (no, I'm not Ethiopian). It's about seven years behind us, which meant that they avoided the Y2K catastrophe until 2007.
Oh, there wasn't any catastrophe?
Reminds me of when Google introduced its new version of News a couple-three years back. There were thousands of messages on its user forum deploring the new interface, and asking for the old one back. I never saw a single message in favor of the new version. (Ok, there was one, but it was tongue-in-cheek.)
FWIW, Google never did go back to the old version, despite its unanimous rejection on the part of users.
The same as the focus group that tested the Ribbon, I'm sure.
I already told you next week that I'm here.
oops, someone beat me to it (I searched for "Mr Fusion", but he had a period after "Mr.")
Is this how Mr. Fusion works?
IANL, but I believe that is incorrect. A patent application (at least in the US) only requires a "description of how to make and use the invention that must provide sufficient detail for a person skilled in the art (i.e., the relevant area of technology) to make and use the invention." That doesn't mean the patent holder needs to have that skill, nor that the patent holder needs to have built it or contracted someone to build it.
Doesn't Plato own the patent for projecting images on the walls of CAVEs? Although I think Socrates could claim prior art. Also, their technique didn't require head tracking, the users' heads were strapped in so they couldn't move--they were indeed limited to peripheral vision for seeing anything not in front of them.
I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of this, which the margin of this post is too narrow to contain.
> ... that "fossilized" phoneme swap was carried over into Classical Latin, even after the
> change in accent patterns, and even still occurs in a lot of English borrowings from Latin...
> indicates that much of phonological theory is bunkum. Clearly, Modern English
> are learning fossilized forms, not putting "de-" and "fac" together, calculating the
> pre-Classical Latin stress and then its phonological effect
Can you say non-sequitur? I knew you could.
Untrue. Cherokee is still spoken in western North Carolina (as well as Oklahoma), and the Mayan languages (Tzeltal, Chol, Quiche, Q'anjob'al, and dozens of others) are still spoken by millions of speakers in southern Mexico, Guatemala, and down into Honduras and Belize--including what appears to be the place where they originated, in what is now northern Guatemala.
Obi Wan Kenobi...to paraphrase another response.
Actually, Prolog. It was once my favorite programming language. Sigh...
You obviously don't know what you're talking about. To paraphrase Dr. Henry Jones, Sr., it tells me that goose-stepping morons like yourself should try reading the Bible instead of spouting off in your ignorance.
Ok, that's not a very good paraphrase. But still, the OP's religion says no such thing as you claim, nor did Jesus threaten anyone in the way you claim.
The problem is not that at any given moment, a planet in this cluster would be inimical to life. The problem is that (as I understand it) planets there do not have stable orbits. Going from cold enough to freeze CO2, for example, to hot enough to melt lead is not likely to lead to stable atmospheres, or even any atmosphere.
Ba'al hasn't told us yet.