Open Office did not have the TOC, TOF, page numbering, section break, formatting options that worked well enough for those reports.
I have no idea what TOF is, but Open Office has perfectly good options for all of the other things. I refuse to believe that it wasn't up to scratch. Rather, I think that you have developed habits with MSO which you refuse to break or recognise.
I am likewise not a doctor, but my g/friend is[1]. The hit ratio is not as high as you would believe it to be during diagnosis. Granted, it's usually above 95%, but still, that's a 1 in 20 chance of a misdiagnosis. Seeing 20 patients a day means a high probability of one misdiagnosis a day. However, since the misdiagnosis does not result in lethal side-effects, no one cares (patient eventually gets better on their own or dies from desperation).
[1] A surgeon, meaning that she did practice as a GP at some point.
If U.S. political polls select a sample size of between a few hundred and a thousand out of 300 million with only 3%..."
I'm not so sure those percentages are accurate.
They look accurate to me. From me undergrad stats classes, I seem to recall that to get 5% confidence level out of population of 10k, one needed a sample of around 850. For populations of 1000k, the sample size only went up by a few tens (perhaps to 900). Sampling is not linear, and it drops off the higher you go - IIRC (and I think I do), their is very little difference in the sample size for a population of 100k as there is for twenty times that number.
To get statistical significance, you don't need to sample the entire population. Beyond a certain number for a certain confidence level, you don't get very much more.
I'd very much like to know how they "surveyed" the people. Simply asking people if they've experienced any effects from cell-radiation is almost bound to get "yes" answers from flat-earth-society-wannabes. I'm guessing that the survey was a survey, and not a blind study (i.e. the subjects aren't aware of the correlation being investigated when questioned).
You seem to have no idea about what people find attractive beyond your own opinion. I find slightly overweight or fat girls more attractive than skinny girls, especially those stereotyped "pretty" girls generally found in advertisement. My gf is slim but has fatty skin which I find extremely attractive.
Firstly, I don't need to have any idea about what you, personally, find attractive. What I know is what the majority of people find attractive. Of course there are outliers, but outliers don't invalidate the phrase "What most people find attractive"
Secondly, it's not actual weight or fat that makes a certain body unattractive, it's the general shape. Women need to have some sort of hourglass-sh figure. Last I checked, for women the ideal ratio of chest:waist:hip was 1:0.7:1 (or similar). There is a similar ratio that applies to men (shoulders:hip).
Basically, feel free to be any shape you want, but don't dare bitch that fewer people find that shape unattractive. It takes work and willpower to look good, and if you have neither don't bitch that the people who do expend the effort don't find you attractive. If you want to be attractive to a larger portion of the population, hey, then do the fucking work.
You're probably fat. So put down that bag of sweets and get out of your chair and get some exercise. If you're fat, you're unattractive, no matter how many other endearing qualities you possess. Don't bitch that the rest of us are "picky". We're picky because we don't carry excess weight.
Won't work. Not unless you live somewhere freezing cold. Under ideal circumstances (in the uterus) the sperm cells will last 5 days or less. In the trash, maybe a day before it dries out, perhaps even sooner on warm days.
Your g/friend is not pregnant with your child - demand a paternity test if she says she is.
Actually, point of fact - 5 possible purchasers (friends of mine) that were eagerly awaiting the release in this country went with netbooks after I told them no multi-tasking - "It will work with apps just like your iphone".
The *only* reason these people were considering it were because of RDF; after all, it's not like they first had a look at one and then decided it could be useful, they decided to get one after seeing pics (perhaps finding a use for it after purchase).
Apple sells it products this way - no one actually *tries* *it* *out* first.
Not a big fan of the micro-fest that has evolved from these RTS games. Back when starcraft was new, people would have great time building up huge economies and tossing huge armies at their opponents without a thought to the actual rate of success of such attacks. Then a sudden paradigm shift happened, and all the game focused on micro. Winning early was no longer rushing, and frowned upon. And a casual player had no hope of success against a much more experienced, and twitchy, player.
Ah, but you see it all balances out in the end, if your defences were up to the task, then the early rush leaves the attacker crippled for a long game, and thus you gain an advantage. However, if you aren't able to fend off an attacker, you probably aren't going to do very well in the long run anyway.
Between APPL market cap catching up to MSFT, people moving off to apple products in droves,
google's dominance, and non-MS phones, plus the increasing user-friendlyness of Linux distros,
microsoft hasn't been in the news lately. Now I can *finally* move off of windows totally, if games
on linux take off.
Seems that the "Microsoft is dying" meme might well happen, but not due to a single MS-killer,
but emergence of new monopolies?
On the other hand, they may be valuable eyeballs; extremely targeted market who may actually be able and willing to spend:-)
You never know - depends on how you market those eyeballs.
Slashdot Mirror
this is why you record them from a distance without their knowledge.
The cop is less likely to smash some heads if you have a camera on him.
Is there any reason that two directly contradicting statements get modded insightful not once, but twice?
How is the cop less likely to smash some heads if you are recording from a distance without their knowledge
?
Open Office did not have the TOC, TOF, page numbering, section break, formatting options that worked well enough for those reports.
I have no idea what TOF is, but Open Office has perfectly good options for all of the other things. I refuse to believe that it wasn't up to scratch. Rather, I think that you have developed habits with MSO which you refuse to break or recognise.
Table of figures
Replying to undo accidental mod
Huh. You learn something new every day.
GP didn't present a Hobsons Choice - two options were clear, not one.
I am likewise not a doctor, but my g/friend is[1]. The hit ratio is not as high as you would believe it to be during diagnosis. Granted, it's usually above 95%, but still, that's a 1 in 20 chance of a misdiagnosis. Seeing 20 patients a day means a high probability of one misdiagnosis a day. However, since the misdiagnosis does not result in lethal side-effects, no one cares (patient eventually gets better on their own or dies from desperation).
[1] A surgeon, meaning that she did practice as a GP at some point.
If U.S. political polls select a sample size of between a few hundred and a thousand out of 300 million with only 3%..."
I'm not so sure those percentages are accurate.
They look accurate to me. From me undergrad stats classes, I seem to recall that to get 5% confidence level out of population of 10k, one needed a sample of around 850. For populations of 1000k, the sample size only went up by a few tens (perhaps to 900). Sampling is not linear, and it drops off the higher you go - IIRC (and I think I do), their is very little difference in the sample size for a population of 100k as there is for twenty times that number.
To get statistical significance, you don't need to sample the entire population. Beyond a certain number for a certain confidence level, you don't get very much more.
I'd very much like to know how they "surveyed" the people. Simply asking people if they've experienced any effects from cell-radiation is almost bound to get "yes" answers from flat-earth-society-wannabes. I'm guessing that the survey was a survey, and not a blind study (i.e. the subjects aren't aware of the correlation being investigated when questioned).
You seem to have no idea about what people find attractive beyond your own opinion. I find slightly overweight or fat girls more attractive than skinny girls, especially those stereotyped "pretty" girls generally found in advertisement. My gf is slim but has fatty skin which I find extremely attractive.
Firstly, I don't need to have any idea about what you, personally, find attractive. What I know is what the majority of people find attractive. Of course there are outliers, but outliers don't invalidate the phrase "What most people find attractive"
Secondly, it's not actual weight or fat that makes a certain body unattractive, it's the general shape. Women need to have some sort of hourglass-sh figure. Last I checked, for women the ideal ratio of chest:waist:hip was 1:0.7:1 (or similar). There is a similar ratio that applies to men (shoulders:hip).
Basically, feel free to be any shape you want, but don't dare bitch that fewer people find that shape unattractive. It takes work and willpower to look good, and if you have neither don't bitch that the people who do expend the effort don't find you attractive. If you want to be attractive to a larger portion of the population, hey, then do the fucking work.
You're probably fat. So put down that bag of sweets and get out of your chair and get some exercise. If you're fat, you're unattractive, no matter how many other endearing qualities you possess. Don't bitch that the rest of us are "picky". We're picky because we don't carry excess weight.
You aren't gonna get it on with her hot friend anyway - girls lie about their ex.
Won't work. Not unless you live somewhere freezing cold. Under ideal circumstances (in the uterus) the sperm cells will last 5 days or less. In the trash, maybe a day before it dries out, perhaps even sooner on warm days.
Your g/friend is not pregnant with your child - demand a paternity test if she says she is.
Actually, point of fact - 5 possible purchasers (friends of mine) that were eagerly awaiting the release in this country went with netbooks after I told them no multi-tasking - "It will work with apps just like your iphone".
The *only* reason these people were considering it were because of RDF; after all, it's not like they first had a look at one and then decided it could be useful, they decided to get one after seeing pics (perhaps finding a use for it after purchase).
Apple sells it products this way - no one actually *tries* *it* *out* first.
But, hey, not to worry - the execs who produced the short-term profit have already taken their bonuses. So it worked out for them after all, hey?
Not a big fan of the micro-fest that has evolved from these RTS games. Back when starcraft was new, people would have great time building up huge economies and tossing huge armies at their opponents without a thought to the actual rate of success of such attacks. Then a sudden paradigm shift happened, and all the game focused on micro. Winning early was no longer rushing, and frowned upon. And a casual player had no hope of success against a much more experienced, and twitchy, player.
Ah, but you see it all balances out in the end, if your defences were up to the task, then the early rush leaves the attacker crippled for a long game, and thus you gain an advantage. However, if you aren't able to fend off an attacker, you probably aren't going to do very well in the long run anyway.
How the hell is that a troll? Damn mods missing meds again
Between APPL market cap catching up to MSFT, people moving off to apple products in droves, google's dominance, and non-MS phones, plus the increasing user-friendlyness of Linux distros, microsoft hasn't been in the news lately. Now I can *finally* move off of windows totally, if games on linux take off.
Seems that the "Microsoft is dying" meme might well happen, but not due to a single MS-killer, but emergence of new monopolies?
If I haven't been getting modded up, it's cos giants were standing on my shoulders
On the other hand, they may be valuable eyeballs; extremely targeted market who may actually be able and willing to spend :-)
You never know - depends on how you market those eyeballs.
A thousand pairs of eyeballs isn't a huge advertisment target.
No, I'm not - I'm african, and it was taught as history in schools here. As such, I know our history (probably) better than you.
Africa, largely thanks to European colonialism, suffers from constant civil war.
Wait, what?
You must be insane to make a statement like that.
At skin contact you aren't getting the full bottle. Not accidently, at any rate.
The additional chances of reproduction by the highly social are going to far outweigh the minimal extra dangers it causes.
The "additional" chances are minimal at best - modern societies are such that almost everyone with working equipment will reproduce.