Nope.... documents laid out in LO Writer won't always open correctly in Word either. As I said... this is most heavily felt when the document has a lot of layout and formatting requirements.
As for why a person would use Word for anything when there are suitable software packages for building the desired effect (such as Scribus, as you mentioned).... it's because Word and Office are almost ubiquitous. Employers will, for example, often expect resumes to be submitted in Word format... Although often this is merely so that the employer can use automated screening tools on the resume submissions, when one is trying to make a good first impression, presentation still matters. A lot. And for that matter, a person's fluency with LO's Calc or any other free spreadsheet program isn't going to impress anyone when they are looking for an Excel guru. I've seen people who are very fluent in one struggle with using the other... most if not all of the functionality may be there, but the procedures for doing things can sometimes differ enough that it won't be at all intuitive to a lot of people.
As for newer versions of Office not being fully compatible with old ones, that's a misleading counterexample to the incompatibility that exists between LO and Office, since both products are examples of *current* software.
If something appears 5 billion light years away, then the light that you are seeing from that thing was emitted 5 billion years ago. If something appears to be 13.3 billion light years away, then the light that we are seeing from it was emitted 13.3 billion years ago... which is considerably earlier than the alleged dark period... ended. if things weren't really emitting any light before the dark age came to an end, then why can we detect them?
Open them sure... but they'd look like shit. Any special formatting that may have been done is shot all to hell if you want to open any remotely complicated word document in LO.
I don't ever recall not being able to open a MS Word document in Libre Office, no matter what the version of MS Word the document was saved in was
Really... I don't ever recall being able to open ANY MS word document in LO or OO correctly, when the document contained absolutely any kind of special formatting and was more than just simple text. Sure, it will open just fine in the editor, but the formatting, especially for any embedded content such as images, will always be fucked up.
One of the biggest problems with Open Office that I've noticed is that familiarity or even fluency with it generally isn't considered a marketable skill if one is actually trying to get an office job. Companies want to see Office... Excel... Powerpoint. Open Office will just leave them going "meh". And to be honest, I've seen plenty of evidence that fluency using open office isn't particularly transferrable to using Office and its tools.
I am saying it's cheaper in the long term (if you buy the phone outright) and the same price in the short term if you have bad credit (20% interest rate) and cheaper in the short term if you have good credit (10% interest rate).
I won't dispute it's cheaper in the long term if you buy the phone outright... but in general, I'd dare say that the only reason it will be cheaper with a CC to buy a phone is because you can actually pay it off faster than the two years that you'd be stuck in a contract with a single provider.
Bear in mind also that there's really no difference in principle to being locked into paying off credit card debt and locked into a single cell phone service contract for two years. You can't just decide with the former that you won't pay them anymore until what you owe has been settled, neither can you do so with the latter.
One of the more interesting explanations that I've heard for the so-called slow motion effect that seems to happen during periods of high stress or anxiety is actually just the conscious mind's interpretation of the relationship between the amount of new information being recalled by the act of remembering something and the passage of time.
The brain has a way of focusing a larger amount of attention to anything that is novel or different, and in certain types of "big" situations, the circumstances can be extremely novel, warranting a high level of attention to immediate detail. This effectively increases the quantity of new data that will be processed by the brain over that span of time. Your mind is accustomed to generally receiving such data at certain speeds through daily experience, however, and amounts that are in excess of that will cause you to recall the experience as taking proportionally more time than it actually did. In fact, it's really your memory fooling you about how much time actually passed, not how fast time actually seemed to take for you while it was happening. It's only when you try to recall the event that it will seem to have took so long. Although it will genuinely seem like you are remembering time seeming to slow down for you as the events were happening, this illusion is only caused by a skewed sense of time impressed into your memory by the amount of new information you were absorbing.
And as I said, you could purchase the phone with a credit card and simply pay it off over time at a similar (if not lower) rate
Except that the payments to your credit card for the phone, plus the cost of the service, will result in higher monthly expenses overall until the phone is finished being paid for. The fact that it's cheaper in the long run is moot if you can't afford it in the short term.
If the object was 5 billion light years away at the time of emission, then it would take 5 billion light years for that light to reach us... not more... even though by the time the light reached us the object would be much further.
If the source was closer when the light we are seeing now was emitted, then we should be seeing it now at the distance it was at the time. The objects are, as we see them now on earth, over 13 billion light years away, which means that the light was emitted from them over 13 billion years ago. That doesn't sound particularly dark to me.
The freedom that it gives you, as I said... is irrelevant if you can't afford to pay for the service in the first place because you are trying to pay off your new smart phone. The difference in price between providers that offer lower rate plans for fully owned phones and those that subsidize is less than what the typical monthly payments would have to be on owning your own phone through a separate installment plan. Certainly bringing an already-owned phone will be cheaper with a provider that offers cheaper plans for preowned phones, but that's a moot point if one actually wanted a new phone (which people clearly do, or else they wouldn't get subsidized phones in the first place).
If the universe is 13.8 billion years old, and the universe went through a dark period that was supposedly a billion years long, then why can we detect objects that are as far as 13.3 billion light years away? Shouldn't everything past about 12.8 billion light years be.... well... dark?
I'm not discounting the benefits of owning your own phone and bringing it into a service plan for less... that makes a lot of sense. I'm saying, however, that until the phone is finished being paid for, the month-to-month expenses are almost always going to be more affordable with a subsidized phone. What good is the freedom to change services anytime you want if for the first few months of service that you would otherwise get, you are spending more money than what you can reasonably afford to budget in the first place because you need to pay off the phone?
Except, as I was also saying... the companies that *do* offer reduced cost plans for people who buy their phone outright are not significantly cheaper, per month, than plans that subsidize phones... Until the phone is finished being paid for, a person spends more money each month with an unsubsidized phone than they would with a subsidized one.
That most higher end cell phones are too pricey for most people to simply buy outright without paying it off in monthly installments, which can fit within their budget. There are two ways to do this... one is to buy the phone and arrange a monthly payment plan, and the other is to sign a contract with a cell phone provider and allow your service payments over the next 2 years to subsidize the phone. Either way, you are paying for the phone over the next while, so you are locked into something either way.... one way you are locked in with whoever gave you the credit to buy a phone on monthly installments and the other you are locked in with a provider. The latter approach, however, is considerably more convenient for most people, since it doesn't require any additional legwork on their part to arrange for a monthly installment plan.
Now phone plans from any given provider, generally speaking, cost exactly the same amount whether a person owns their phone or tries to get it subsidized through a multi-year contract. That's assuming that the provider even offers plans to subsidize a phone (I know several that do not, and require you to buy the phone anyways). So there's no financial advantage to bringing your own phone into any service provided by the companies that offer subsidization over getting a subsidized phone beyond the freedom to leave at any time. But even the difference in monthly costs between providers that require that you own your phone and those that will subsidize a phone is generally less than what you'd be paying in monthly installments for a phone anyways (assuming you could even arrange that, which as I said above, requires a bit more legwork on the part of the customer), so looking at things strictly from a month-to-month perspective, over the time that it takes to pay off the phone, you would generally be spending more every month owning your own phone until the phone was paid off.. I don't dispute that you'd save money in the long run, but in the short term, the "free phones" are usually the more immediately prudent investment for people on a limited monthly budget.
I don't know what you thought my opinion was before or what you thought I changed it to... but the above has always been what I was trying to say... and I'm not terribly sure what's there to be disagreed with, since it doesn't seem to me to be terribly full of opinion. At most, it might be a generalization, but that doesn't mean it isn't true in most cases (which is all I've ever been suggesting to be the case).
The punishment should always fit the crime, and people shouldn't arbitrarily be given harsher punishments just to deter others...
So should I take it from this that you disapprove of the notion of speeding fines being doubled during daylight hours inside of school zones? That is, after all, creating a harsher punishment to act as a deterrent.
If you argument is that people don't use T-Mobile because they can't get T-Mobile service in their area, this is a different argument than the one I was disagreeing with and also this is only an argument for people who are not covered by T-Mobile.
Then why, if it is a different argument than what you were disagreeing with, did you seem to be disagreeing with me?
Given that you are free to use whatever provider you want
Only ones in that cover your area.
...the fact that some don't provide service...
*MOST*... not kisy some. In fact, I only know of one provider that offers a discounted plan for owning your own phone, and they don't even service my area.
I'd dare say that in the vast majority of cases where people are paying more money per month for a service plan than they needed to if they had owned the phone, and these people have a respectable credit rating, people simply are unaware of the ease with which an alternative payment arrangement might be made with equally low monthly installments. Of course, not everyone who is able to finagle a free phone on a contract plan has a good enough credit rating to get a decent rate loan for said phone.
But again, my point is that this is the exception, and not the rule.
But you might have to quit using it when mIcrosoft doesn't release patches for it that address critical vulnerabilities. While it's certainly true that those vulnerabilities were always there and aren't anything new... once the vulnerability becomes publicly known, it's liable to be the case that people try to exploit it more frequetntly. MS patched this one... this time. They really aren't under any obligation to always do so in the future.
Slashdot Mirror
Nope.... documents laid out in LO Writer won't always open correctly in Word either. As I said... this is most heavily felt when the document has a lot of layout and formatting requirements.
As for why a person would use Word for anything when there are suitable software packages for building the desired effect (such as Scribus, as you mentioned) .... it's because Word and Office are almost ubiquitous. Employers will, for example, often expect resumes to be submitted in Word format... Although often this is merely so that the employer can use automated screening tools on the resume submissions, when one is trying to make a good first impression, presentation still matters. A lot. And for that matter, a person's fluency with LO's Calc or any other free spreadsheet program isn't going to impress anyone when they are looking for an Excel guru. I've seen people who are very fluent in one struggle with using the other... most if not all of the functionality may be there, but the procedures for doing things can sometimes differ enough that it won't be at all intuitive to a lot of people.
As for newer versions of Office not being fully compatible with old ones, that's a misleading counterexample to the incompatibility that exists between LO and Office, since both products are examples of *current* software.
If something appears 5 billion light years away, then the light that you are seeing from that thing was emitted 5 billion years ago. If something appears to be 13.3 billion light years away, then the light that we are seeing from it was emitted 13.3 billion years ago... which is considerably earlier than the alleged dark period... ended. if things weren't really emitting any light before the dark age came to an end, then why can we detect them?
Open them sure... but they'd look like shit. Any special formatting that may have been done is shot all to hell if you want to open any remotely complicated word document in LO.
Really... I don't ever recall being able to open ANY MS word document in LO or OO correctly, when the document contained absolutely any kind of special formatting and was more than just simple text. Sure, it will open just fine in the editor, but the formatting, especially for any embedded content such as images, will always be fucked up.
One of the biggest problems with Open Office that I've noticed is that familiarity or even fluency with it generally isn't considered a marketable skill if one is actually trying to get an office job. Companies want to see Office... Excel... Powerpoint. Open Office will just leave them going "meh". And to be honest, I've seen plenty of evidence that fluency using open office isn't particularly transferrable to using Office and its tools.
I won't dispute it's cheaper in the long term if you buy the phone outright... but in general, I'd dare say that the only reason it will be cheaper with a CC to buy a phone is because you can actually pay it off faster than the two years that you'd be stuck in a contract with a single provider.
Bear in mind also that there's really no difference in principle to being locked into paying off credit card debt and locked into a single cell phone service contract for two years. You can't just decide with the former that you won't pay them anymore until what you owe has been settled, neither can you do so with the latter.
One of the more interesting explanations that I've heard for the so-called slow motion effect that seems to happen during periods of high stress or anxiety is actually just the conscious mind's interpretation of the relationship between the amount of new information being recalled by the act of remembering something and the passage of time.
The brain has a way of focusing a larger amount of attention to anything that is novel or different, and in certain types of "big" situations, the circumstances can be extremely novel, warranting a high level of attention to immediate detail. This effectively increases the quantity of new data that will be processed by the brain over that span of time. Your mind is accustomed to generally receiving such data at certain speeds through daily experience, however, and amounts that are in excess of that will cause you to recall the experience as taking proportionally more time than it actually did. In fact, it's really your memory fooling you about how much time actually passed, not how fast time actually seemed to take for you while it was happening. It's only when you try to recall the event that it will seem to have took so long. Although it will genuinely seem like you are remembering time seeming to slow down for you as the events were happening, this illusion is only caused by a skewed sense of time impressed into your memory by the amount of new information you were absorbing.
Except that the payments to your credit card for the phone, plus the cost of the service, will result in higher monthly expenses overall until the phone is finished being paid for. The fact that it's cheaper in the long run is moot if you can't afford it in the short term.
If the object was 5 billion light years away at the time of emission, then it would take 5 billion light years for that light to reach us... not more... even though by the time the light reached us the object would be much further.
If the source was closer when the light we are seeing now was emitted, then we should be seeing it now at the distance it was at the time. The objects are, as we see them now on earth, over 13 billion light years away, which means that the light was emitted from them over 13 billion years ago. That doesn't sound particularly dark to me.
The freedom that it gives you, as I said... is irrelevant if you can't afford to pay for the service in the first place because you are trying to pay off your new smart phone. The difference in price between providers that offer lower rate plans for fully owned phones and those that subsidize is less than what the typical monthly payments would have to be on owning your own phone through a separate installment plan. Certainly bringing an already-owned phone will be cheaper with a provider that offers cheaper plans for preowned phones, but that's a moot point if one actually wanted a new phone (which people clearly do, or else they wouldn't get subsidized phones in the first place).
Do you not see a contradiction there? If nothing older was producing any light, then where did the older light come from?
If the universe is 13.8 billion years old, and the universe went through a dark period that was supposedly a billion years long, then why can we detect objects that are as far as 13.3 billion light years away? Shouldn't everything past about 12.8 billion light years be.... well... dark?
The environment of Mars is positively paradise compared to the that of outer space.
I'm not discounting the benefits of owning your own phone and bringing it into a service plan for less... that makes a lot of sense. I'm saying, however, that until the phone is finished being paid for, the month-to-month expenses are almost always going to be more affordable with a subsidized phone. What good is the freedom to change services anytime you want if for the first few months of service that you would otherwise get, you are spending more money than what you can reasonably afford to budget in the first place because you need to pay off the phone?
I don't argue that it's possible... but is there actually any precedent of anyone being killed who confronted an alleged phone thief?
Except, as I was also saying... the companies that *do* offer reduced cost plans for people who buy their phone outright are not significantly cheaper, per month, than plans that subsidize phones... Until the phone is finished being paid for, a person spends more money each month with an unsubsidized phone than they would with a subsidized one.
Nope... you pretty much nailed what I was driving at.
My point has always been thus:
That most higher end cell phones are too pricey for most people to simply buy outright without paying it off in monthly installments, which can fit within their budget. There are two ways to do this... one is to buy the phone and arrange a monthly payment plan, and the other is to sign a contract with a cell phone provider and allow your service payments over the next 2 years to subsidize the phone. Either way, you are paying for the phone over the next while, so you are locked into something either way.... one way you are locked in with whoever gave you the credit to buy a phone on monthly installments and the other you are locked in with a provider. The latter approach, however, is considerably more convenient for most people, since it doesn't require any additional legwork on their part to arrange for a monthly installment plan.
Now phone plans from any given provider, generally speaking, cost exactly the same amount whether a person owns their phone or tries to get it subsidized through a multi-year contract. That's assuming that the provider even offers plans to subsidize a phone (I know several that do not, and require you to buy the phone anyways). So there's no financial advantage to bringing your own phone into any service provided by the companies that offer subsidization over getting a subsidized phone beyond the freedom to leave at any time. But even the difference in monthly costs between providers that require that you own your phone and those that will subsidize a phone is generally less than what you'd be paying in monthly installments for a phone anyways (assuming you could even arrange that, which as I said above, requires a bit more legwork on the part of the customer), so looking at things strictly from a month-to-month perspective, over the time that it takes to pay off the phone, you would generally be spending more every month owning your own phone until the phone was paid off.. I don't dispute that you'd save money in the long run, but in the short term, the "free phones" are usually the more immediately prudent investment for people on a limited monthly budget.
I don't know what you thought my opinion was before or what you thought I changed it to... but the above has always been what I was trying to say... and I'm not terribly sure what's there to be disagreed with, since it doesn't seem to me to be terribly full of opinion. At most, it might be a generalization, but that doesn't mean it isn't true in most cases (which is all I've ever been suggesting to be the case).
Clearly, the only proper way to oppose such unjust penalties then would be to disregard the law in that context.
Let me know how that works out for you.
I really haven't changed my argument.... I've only elaborated on it. So it would seem that you must have misinterpreted my original stance.
So should I take it from this that you disapprove of the notion of speeding fines being doubled during daylight hours inside of school zones? That is, after all, creating a harsher punishment to act as a deterrent.
Then why, if it is a different argument than what you were disagreeing with, did you seem to be disagreeing with me?
Only ones in that cover your area.
*MOST*... not kisy some. In fact, I only know of one provider that offers a discounted plan for owning your own phone, and they don't even service my area.
I'd dare say that in the vast majority of cases where people are paying more money per month for a service plan than they needed to if they had owned the phone, and these people have a respectable credit rating, people simply are unaware of the ease with which an alternative payment arrangement might be made with equally low monthly installments. Of course, not everyone who is able to finagle a free phone on a contract plan has a good enough credit rating to get a decent rate loan for said phone.
But again, my point is that this is the exception, and not the rule.
But you might have to quit using it when mIcrosoft doesn't release patches for it that address critical vulnerabilities. While it's certainly true that those vulnerabilities were always there and aren't anything new... once the vulnerability becomes publicly known, it's liable to be the case that people try to exploit it more frequetntly. MS patched this one... this time. They really aren't under any obligation to always do so in the future.