Venus's ionosphere creates an induced magnetosphere. It's not as good as the one we have, but it does enough to keep the entire atmosphere from being blown away.
The ideal case would be no lawyers and no lawsuits
... and no laws. And everyone just magically works together and gets along.
While lawyers do exist in a system that in many respects is broken, they still nonetheless provide a valuable service. Fact is, people are going to take advantage of you and your business, lawyers or no lawyers. If your company gets ravaged by wolves it doesn't matter how much you spend on R&D. Like most people on here you probably feel that making the product is the only important part of doing business, but that's not even close. From large to small companies, everything exists in a continuum that works together to sell products. Invest 100% in R&D and no one knows about the product you're selling. Invest 100% in marketing and you don't have a product to sell. There are thousands of facets like this in a business and like it or not legal is one of them. If you don't invest enough in legal, you might end up doing some illegal things without knowing it and end up in a lot of trouble. So in your ideal lawless world, where there are no patents or lawyers and their budget is freed for other endeavors, there is nothing to say that will be invested back into R&D.
There are modules on the market that take sim cards and allow to send SMS with an Arduino. All the bits like screens, batteries, CPUs, and all other components can be purchased and assembled at quite reasonable prices.
And the only thing stopping companies from sprouting up and creating phones is software patents, you contend. It's not the fact that you're buying these components for more than your competition, you're selling your product for more than the competition, your competition can out advertise you and outsell you, has an entrenched worldwide distribution network, world-known brand recognition... etc.
Now, if we're talking something that would directly compete with Apple, Samsung or Nokia, then yes, it'd have to be huge.
Exactly. You're either competing against these companies, or you're irrelevent like Openmoko selling 10,000 units to a super niche audience. You're honestly better off starting a restaurant. It would be cheaper and have a larger market. You can take software patents completely out of the picture and you won't see any more entrants into the cellphone market because it doesn't make financial sense.
Large companies have a million ways to crush small companies. It's not as if small companies only started being dominated after software patents became prevalent. If your competive advantage is "I'm only profitable if X company doesn't notice me" then maybe you don't have the best business plan on the block, because if X company can't crush you with software patents he'll crush you some other way.
That money is going on lawyers and paper pushing, instead of research, development, and manufacturing something new.
It's not a zero sum game. If that money weren't spent on lawyers it might be spent on marketing. Or executive salaries. I mean, look at Apple; they're sitting on billions in cash. It's not like they're not investing in more in R&D because they're busy suing everyone. They invest as much as they need to and no more.
To enter the market at all and survive you need to be Google sized, and even then it's troublesome to say the least.
It's not like eliminating software patents would change this. Entering the cellphone market is still a giant task. You need supplier relations, distributors, manufacturing, high cost of R&D, regulation compliance, and to top it all off there are hardware patents still! Any company willing to invest in those areas are going to be able to brave software patent litigation.
The issue isn't if they can do it, it's will they. Kids and teenagers want to play video games, hang out with their friends, chase girls, etc. If you don't present programming in the right light, they won't be interested or try it out and set it aside. I've seen it at every age level. Starting with C/C++ is probably the worst approach possible.
I've used Arduino. Who hasn't? True they're solderless. That's not the deal. We're talking about kids who have never programmed before, and who we're really not sure if they want to program at all. C/C++ is not how I would introduce them to programming. I teach C/C++ at the college level, and if I had my way the cirriculum wouldn't include C at all, or at least toward the end of the semester.
I agree all the things you mentioned are good once you have some experience, but if you're going to give a kid (again, with unknown aptitude and prediliction for programming) an arduino, and expect to spend "a few afternoons" showing them how to program it then pat them on the back and send them on their way, they'll probably put it down as soon as you turn your back.
The freedom to do anything can be overwhelming and paralyzing especially when you don't know all the right things to do or even how to start. Which arduino do I use, which shields do I use, how do I interface with my PC? Bluetooth? Wifi? Xbee? Serial? USB? What are the differences? What is a microcontroller? What are the differences between them? How do I provide power? Why do I need a voltage regulator? What is voltage? Some kids will embrace this new knowledge. Some will become overwhelmed and therefore disinterested.
With something like Mindstorms, all the pieces are there, all the parts and instructions are there, programming is dead simple with a graphical programming language. You think of something, you snap it together, you make it move. No issues about compatibility or protocols or frying circuits, or other frustrations that come up with something like Arduino.
The thing about robotics is there's a great divide between really cool stuff and really lame stuff in terms of price. There are a lot of really cheap robotics kits.... but they're pretty lame: solder a few wires to a motor and board and watch a car follow a line. BFD. And then that's it, you can't do anything more with it. On the other hand all the awesome hexapods and humanoids are going to run you thousands of dollars. A single servo can cost over $100!
With that in mind, I highly suggest reconsidering the Mindstorms kit. You might even consider buying a Mindstorms 1.0 kit from Ebay. They're apparently on the 2.0 generation, and it seems like the 1.0 kit is significant;y cheaper. But it's seriously worth it.
If I were a kid again, I know something like a mindstorms kit would certainly get me interested in robotics. In fact, what got me interested in robotics initially was a Capsela robotics kit I got for Christmas. It was great having all the pieces and sensors there so whatever I imagined I could create and program. The programs were simple (eg. go forward until bumper press), but I didn't spend hours frustrated and stuck knowing what I wanted to do but unable to do it. Soon enough I graduated honest to god microcontrollers, soldering tools, and C.
Also I would rethink concentrating on the software side. Most people I know who are in robotics (I know a lot of people in robotics, it's my field) started because they loved building things with their hands. The appeal of robotics is to build something and then give it life. Both parts have to be there for you to foster interest. Getting bogged down in the programming is a bad idea, as it will just lead to frustration and then disinterest, especially if they've never programmed before. Again this seems like a win for Mindstorms.
tldr: don't be cheap and spend the money. You get what you pay for.
Most people that I have asking me for Microsoft Office just want to write a couple of documents. For these users, they would be better served with Libre or Open Office.
Again, probably not. Sure they might only want to write a couple documents. But then one day they have to fill out a form and it's made in word. They download the file, edit it in Open Office, and then save it as a doc to send back to the person. However, now the page format is all screwy, causing a delay of the filing of the form and some other negative repercussion. This exact scenario happened to a friend of mine. Now, I don't know whose fault it is (Microsoft not documenting their file format properly or OO not conforming to it) but the end result is she would have been better off using word, because then her paperwork would not have been delayed.
It's called a stylus, and has been mocked as a relic by the likes of Apple and pretty much every Tablet trying to copy the success of hte iPad. However, as you point out, here is an areas where it is pretty much required to truely replace the textbook. In fact, I got through college without ever buying a physical textbook thanks to my Tablet PC and its stylus. It's one of the aspects of my iPad I find severely lacking, and why I can't wait for Windows 8 tablets to start popping up because they will surely have stylus support.
I think it really depends on how new the industry is. For example, in the robotics industry, Willow Garage open sourced the software they use to run their PR2 robot. The end result is that pretty much every robotics lab in the country is using their software... maybe even some of their competitors. Now, what does this mean for their bottom line? I'm not sure. But it does mean that more and more people are adopting their platform, and perhaps these labs will be buying a couple PR2 robots (at $500,000 a pop) sometime in the future. But Willow Garage can afford to do this because 1) robotics is a new industry and there are no monolithic players yet and 2) there are no stadards they have to dethrone. Might as well make your own software the defacto standard in that case.
So in that sense, if your customer base is small, and open sourcing will make your cusomter base want to use your product over a competitor who has closed source code, then it seems like a good idea to open source. If you're not targeting people who appreciate open source code (say, if you make accounting software or something) then there really is no compelling reason to.
unintuitive it is a pain to find them, even to do the simplest of things (eg, add a page number field).
Okay, let's take your example and compare. In the Open Office Writer menu system, adding a page number is under Insert>Fields>Page Number. In Office 2010, it's under Insert>Page Number. How exactly is this unintuitive? What's more, the Office 2010 way gives you a variety of locations to place the page number, styles, formats, etc right there. In Writer you are simply given a number where the cursor is. If you want to change the format you have to go to Insert>Fields>Other. THAT is unintuitive.
Further, in Writer, because it lacks contextual menus unlike the ribbon, I have no idea how to insert a page number after I've inserted a header. In Word, when I insert a header, I'm immediately presented with options related to the header, including inserting a page number. How this eluded you is beyond me.
that hierarchy changes depending what you happen to be focused on - in the old menu system, no matter where you were, to find the option the path was the same.
This is not true. The hierarchy is the same no matter what tab you're on. I don't see where you're getting this idea from. This is backed up by the fact that there are static shortcuts for every single feature in the ribbon. You can press the same key combination no matter where you are in your document or what ribbon is active, and as long as that function is valid, you will access it. This is also independed of resolution.
Also it takes up far too much real estate on my screen (and yeah, I know it can be minimized)
Also not true. I made this comparison earlier in another post. Compare Word vs. Writer. This is in 1024x768 resolution. From the top of the screen to the top of the document, both interfaces take up the SAME space. And yes, you note that the ribbon can be hidden (in one click) but you fail to note that the toolbars cannot be hidden. If you have a larger screen, you can of course move some toolbars next to eachother. However, on my screen (1600x900), Writer ends up hiding options whereas Word makes the icons smaller, the functions are still there in plain sight. On a larger display the argument is moot.
There is nothing more frustrating than knowing how to do something very simple (in the pre-2007 version), and spending more time poking around trying to find out where the options are due to the new interface.
That has nothing to do with the interface and more about your familiarity with it. Any new interface will have that flaw. However, there are two points here: 1) take a moment and notice that tabs are pretty intelligently laid out. Want to insert a picture, graph, page number? It's probably under the insert tab. Want to change something about the formatting of the document? It's probably in the Page Layout tab. Of course not every feature can be divided into 7 categories perfectly. Therefore 2) just click the help button and type in the feature you want. More often than not the first hit will tell you exactly what you want to know.
But also notice that a user of the Ribbon is going to have the SAME complaint about the software you use. Personally I find Word 2003 and Open Office Writer very foreign.
I miss and embrace the simplicity and efficiency of those days of not needing to reach for the mouse to execute a particular function. And yes, I am familiar with the keyboard shortcuts, I use them all the time.
As I mentioned before, there is a keyboard shortcut for absolutely everything on the ribbon menu. If you want a shorter shortcut, put the function you want in the quick access bar at the top and your shortcut is alt+#
I know plenty of professors who write papers in Word and refuse to use TeX. I honestly prefer it as well. Most conferences I submit to offer both a TeX and Word template.
Word on a laptop with a smallish screen ends up with less than 50% of the screen usable for actually displaying the document.
Lies. I just opened both Word and OO Writer at 1024x768 resolution. Compare: Office Word vs. Open Office Writer. From top of the screen to the start of the page, the two are the SAME. Which means if you want to add any non-default toolbars Writer is going to have less page real estate than Word. Actually, as it turns out, the pointless horizontal scrollbar at the bottom of Writer give Word the advantage, even with the ribbon. What's more, you can minimize the ribbon in one click. How do you hide the toolbars in Writer and bring them all back in one click?
the ribbon's idea of "context" is the last section of the ribbon you were using.
This is not true at all. Context ribbons appear in color, and they are relevent to the task at hand. When you're writing an equation, the equation context is available. Likewise for tables, graphics, charts, etc. What's more, say you're working on a picture within a table. Both context menus are available then. If you click away from them, they disappear. The ribbon tabs that are always there are nothing more than menu titles in the old menu system... except that one is always open at a time. They essentially have no context. Why exactly is that a problem?
And god forbid, if your trying to setup a custom header and footer than happens to not follow the "styles" that are included
This is not a problem at all... what exactly are you trying to do? You can create your own custom headers and footers or if you're into presets but not the default ones, there are plenty available online.
The largest oversight with the new version of office, is the inability to maintain the old style interface. There is something to be said for a logical hierarchical interface
The ribbon is a hierarchical interface. It's just graphical. For example, in Word the top level hierarchy is File, Home, Insert, Page Layout, References, Mailings, Review, View. Then for example the next level in the Home tab is Clipboard, Font, Paragraph, Styles, Editing. Then each of those is broken down further. This is no different from a textual menu system except that the 3rd level in the hierarchy is visible all at once, so you're always within 2 clicks of 90% of the functions. In the old menu system, it's 3 or more.
rather than an interface based on what MS thinks you want to do
So Microsoft didn't lay out the pre-2007 menu system for you? Not to mention in Office 2010 the ribbon is fully customizable! So if you don't like th way Microsoft chose the layout, you can make your own! What more exactly do you want?
Slashdot Mirror
Venus's ionosphere creates an induced magnetosphere. It's not as good as the one we have, but it does enough to keep the entire atmosphere from being blown away.
The ideal case would be no lawyers and no lawsuits
While lawyers do exist in a system that in many respects is broken, they still nonetheless provide a valuable service. Fact is, people are going to take advantage of you and your business, lawyers or no lawyers. If your company gets ravaged by wolves it doesn't matter how much you spend on R&D. Like most people on here you probably feel that making the product is the only important part of doing business, but that's not even close. From large to small companies, everything exists in a continuum that works together to sell products. Invest 100% in R&D and no one knows about the product you're selling. Invest 100% in marketing and you don't have a product to sell. There are thousands of facets like this in a business and like it or not legal is one of them. If you don't invest enough in legal, you might end up doing some illegal things without knowing it and end up in a lot of trouble. So in your ideal lawless world, where there are no patents or lawyers and their budget is freed for other endeavors, there is nothing to say that will be invested back into R&D.
There are modules on the market that take sim cards and allow to send SMS with an Arduino. All the bits like screens, batteries, CPUs, and all other components can be purchased and assembled at quite reasonable prices.
And the only thing stopping companies from sprouting up and creating phones is software patents, you contend. It's not the fact that you're buying these components for more than your competition, you're selling your product for more than the competition, your competition can out advertise you and outsell you, has an entrenched worldwide distribution network, world-known brand recognition... etc.
Now, if we're talking something that would directly compete with Apple, Samsung or Nokia, then yes, it'd have to be huge.
Exactly. You're either competing against these companies, or you're irrelevent like Openmoko selling 10,000 units to a super niche audience. You're honestly better off starting a restaurant. It would be cheaper and have a larger market. You can take software patents completely out of the picture and you won't see any more entrants into the cellphone market because it doesn't make financial sense.
Large companies have a million ways to crush small companies. It's not as if small companies only started being dominated after software patents became prevalent. If your competive advantage is "I'm only profitable if X company doesn't notice me" then maybe you don't have the best business plan on the block, because if X company can't crush you with software patents he'll crush you some other way.
That money is going on lawyers and paper pushing, instead of research, development, and manufacturing something new.
It's not a zero sum game. If that money weren't spent on lawyers it might be spent on marketing. Or executive salaries. I mean, look at Apple; they're sitting on billions in cash. It's not like they're not investing in more in R&D because they're busy suing everyone. They invest as much as they need to and no more.
To enter the market at all and survive you need to be Google sized, and even then it's troublesome to say the least.
It's not like eliminating software patents would change this. Entering the cellphone market is still a giant task. You need supplier relations, distributors, manufacturing, high cost of R&D, regulation compliance, and to top it all off there are hardware patents still! Any company willing to invest in those areas are going to be able to brave software patent litigation.
The issue isn't if they can do it, it's will they. Kids and teenagers want to play video games, hang out with their friends, chase girls, etc. If you don't present programming in the right light, they won't be interested or try it out and set it aside. I've seen it at every age level. Starting with C/C++ is probably the worst approach possible.
I've used Arduino. Who hasn't? True they're solderless. That's not the deal. We're talking about kids who have never programmed before, and who we're really not sure if they want to program at all. C/C++ is not how I would introduce them to programming. I teach C/C++ at the college level, and if I had my way the cirriculum wouldn't include C at all, or at least toward the end of the semester.
I agree all the things you mentioned are good once you have some experience, but if you're going to give a kid (again, with unknown aptitude and prediliction for programming) an arduino, and expect to spend "a few afternoons" showing them how to program it then pat them on the back and send them on their way, they'll probably put it down as soon as you turn your back.
The freedom to do anything can be overwhelming and paralyzing especially when you don't know all the right things to do or even how to start. Which arduino do I use, which shields do I use, how do I interface with my PC? Bluetooth? Wifi? Xbee? Serial? USB? What are the differences? What is a microcontroller? What are the differences between them? How do I provide power? Why do I need a voltage regulator? What is voltage? Some kids will embrace this new knowledge. Some will become overwhelmed and therefore disinterested.
With something like Mindstorms, all the pieces are there, all the parts and instructions are there, programming is dead simple with a graphical programming language. You think of something, you snap it together, you make it move. No issues about compatibility or protocols or frying circuits, or other frustrations that come up with something like Arduino.
You do realize we're talking about teenagers who have never programmed here? Everything you listed above isn't exactly beginner friendly.
The thing about robotics is there's a great divide between really cool stuff and really lame stuff in terms of price. There are a lot of really cheap robotics kits.... but they're pretty lame: solder a few wires to a motor and board and watch a car follow a line. BFD. And then that's it, you can't do anything more with it. On the other hand all the awesome hexapods and humanoids are going to run you thousands of dollars. A single servo can cost over $100!
With that in mind, I highly suggest reconsidering the Mindstorms kit. You might even consider buying a Mindstorms 1.0 kit from Ebay. They're apparently on the 2.0 generation, and it seems like the 1.0 kit is significant;y cheaper. But it's seriously worth it.
If I were a kid again, I know something like a mindstorms kit would certainly get me interested in robotics. In fact, what got me interested in robotics initially was a Capsela robotics kit I got for Christmas. It was great having all the pieces and sensors there so whatever I imagined I could create and program. The programs were simple (eg. go forward until bumper press), but I didn't spend hours frustrated and stuck knowing what I wanted to do but unable to do it. Soon enough I graduated honest to god microcontrollers, soldering tools, and C.
Also I would rethink concentrating on the software side. Most people I know who are in robotics (I know a lot of people in robotics, it's my field) started because they loved building things with their hands. The appeal of robotics is to build something and then give it life. Both parts have to be there for you to foster interest. Getting bogged down in the programming is a bad idea, as it will just lead to frustration and then disinterest, especially if they've never programmed before. Again this seems like a win for Mindstorms.
tldr: don't be cheap and spend the money. You get what you pay for.
They'll still call that copyright infringement.At least according to youtube it is: http://www.youtube.com/account_monetization
Examples of videos that are NOT eligible: You are only singing words of your favorite copyrighted song
The following Republicans voted for the Reauthorization fo the Patriot Act in 2006:
Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Burr (R-NC)
Chafee (R-RI)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Frist (R-TN)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Talent (R-MO)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
So... you're saying that these are all pretend Republicans? BTW, that's ALL Republicans in the Senate that year.
So what exactly is your evidence that these people are shills, aside from that they post pro-microsoft or anti-google comments?
Most people that I have asking me for Microsoft Office just want to write a couple of documents. For these users, they would be better served with Libre or Open Office.
Again, probably not. Sure they might only want to write a couple documents. But then one day they have to fill out a form and it's made in word. They download the file, edit it in Open Office, and then save it as a doc to send back to the person. However, now the page format is all screwy, causing a delay of the filing of the form and some other negative repercussion. This exact scenario happened to a friend of mine. Now, I don't know whose fault it is (Microsoft not documenting their file format properly or OO not conforming to it) but the end result is she would have been better off using word, because then her paperwork would not have been delayed.
In Word it's under Mailings > Labels. Just tell it what brand you're using and your document is auto formatted.
In Writer it's under File > New > Labels.
Writer seems to be a little lacking in the support area with 10 brands as opposed to Word's 35.
Care to elaborate, or are you just being a negative nancy?
It's called a stylus, and has been mocked as a relic by the likes of Apple and pretty much every Tablet trying to copy the success of hte iPad. However, as you point out, here is an areas where it is pretty much required to truely replace the textbook. In fact, I got through college without ever buying a physical textbook thanks to my Tablet PC and its stylus. It's one of the aspects of my iPad I find severely lacking, and why I can't wait for Windows 8 tablets to start popping up because they will surely have stylus support.
Apple has always offered educational discounts.
Not on the iPad
I think it really depends on how new the industry is. For example, in the robotics industry, Willow Garage open sourced the software they use to run their PR2 robot. The end result is that pretty much every robotics lab in the country is using their software... maybe even some of their competitors. Now, what does this mean for their bottom line? I'm not sure. But it does mean that more and more people are adopting their platform, and perhaps these labs will be buying a couple PR2 robots (at $500,000 a pop) sometime in the future. But Willow Garage can afford to do this because 1) robotics is a new industry and there are no monolithic players yet and 2) there are no stadards they have to dethrone. Might as well make your own software the defacto standard in that case.
So in that sense, if your customer base is small, and open sourcing will make your cusomter base want to use your product over a competitor who has closed source code, then it seems like a good idea to open source. If you're not targeting people who appreciate open source code (say, if you make accounting software or something) then there really is no compelling reason to.
unintuitive it is a pain to find them, even to do the simplest of things (eg, add a page number field).
Okay, let's take your example and compare. In the Open Office Writer menu system, adding a page number is under Insert>Fields>Page Number. In Office 2010, it's under Insert>Page Number. How exactly is this unintuitive? What's more, the Office 2010 way gives you a variety of locations to place the page number, styles, formats, etc right there. In Writer you are simply given a number where the cursor is. If you want to change the format you have to go to Insert>Fields>Other. THAT is unintuitive.
Further, in Writer, because it lacks contextual menus unlike the ribbon, I have no idea how to insert a page number after I've inserted a header. In Word, when I insert a header, I'm immediately presented with options related to the header, including inserting a page number. How this eluded you is beyond me.
that hierarchy changes depending what you happen to be focused on - in the old menu system, no matter where you were, to find the option the path was the same.
This is not true. The hierarchy is the same no matter what tab you're on. I don't see where you're getting this idea from. This is backed up by the fact that there are static shortcuts for every single feature in the ribbon. You can press the same key combination no matter where you are in your document or what ribbon is active, and as long as that function is valid, you will access it. This is also independed of resolution.
Also it takes up far too much real estate on my screen (and yeah, I know it can be minimized)
Also not true. I made this comparison earlier in another post. Compare Word vs. Writer. This is in 1024x768 resolution. From the top of the screen to the top of the document, both interfaces take up the SAME space. And yes, you note that the ribbon can be hidden (in one click) but you fail to note that the toolbars cannot be hidden. If you have a larger screen, you can of course move some toolbars next to eachother. However, on my screen (1600x900), Writer ends up hiding options whereas Word makes the icons smaller, the functions are still there in plain sight. On a larger display the argument is moot.
There is nothing more frustrating than knowing how to do something very simple (in the pre-2007 version), and spending more time poking around trying to find out where the options are due to the new interface.
That has nothing to do with the interface and more about your familiarity with it. Any new interface will have that flaw. However, there are two points here: 1) take a moment and notice that tabs are pretty intelligently laid out. Want to insert a picture, graph, page number? It's probably under the insert tab. Want to change something about the formatting of the document? It's probably in the Page Layout tab. Of course not every feature can be divided into 7 categories perfectly. Therefore 2) just click the help button and type in the feature you want. More often than not the first hit will tell you exactly what you want to know.
But also notice that a user of the Ribbon is going to have the SAME complaint about the software you use. Personally I find Word 2003 and Open Office Writer very foreign.
I miss and embrace the simplicity and efficiency of those days of not needing to reach for the mouse to execute a particular function. And yes, I am familiar with the keyboard shortcuts, I use them all the time.
As I mentioned before, there is a keyboard shortcut for absolutely everything on the ribbon menu. If you want a shorter shortcut, put the function you want in the quick access bar at the top and your shortcut is alt+#
Woops, wrong links. Here: http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=30loqqo&s=5 http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2aj0xu8&s=5
I know plenty of professors who write papers in Word and refuse to use TeX. I honestly prefer it as well. Most conferences I submit to offer both a TeX and Word template.
Just press alt, and it walks you through the keypresses to get to a function.
Word on a laptop with a smallish screen ends up with less than 50% of the screen usable for actually displaying the document.
Lies. I just opened both Word and OO Writer at 1024x768 resolution. Compare: Office Word vs. Open Office Writer. From top of the screen to the start of the page, the two are the SAME. Which means if you want to add any non-default toolbars Writer is going to have less page real estate than Word. Actually, as it turns out, the pointless horizontal scrollbar at the bottom of Writer give Word the advantage, even with the ribbon. What's more, you can minimize the ribbon in one click. How do you hide the toolbars in Writer and bring them all back in one click?
the ribbon's idea of "context" is the last section of the ribbon you were using.
This is not true at all. Context ribbons appear in color, and they are relevent to the task at hand. When you're writing an equation, the equation context is available. Likewise for tables, graphics, charts, etc. What's more, say you're working on a picture within a table. Both context menus are available then. If you click away from them, they disappear. The ribbon tabs that are always there are nothing more than menu titles in the old menu system... except that one is always open at a time. They essentially have no context. Why exactly is that a problem?
And god forbid, if your trying to setup a custom header and footer than happens to not follow the "styles" that are included
This is not a problem at all... what exactly are you trying to do? You can create your own custom headers and footers or if you're into presets but not the default ones, there are plenty available online.
The largest oversight with the new version of office, is the inability to maintain the old style interface. There is something to be said for a logical hierarchical interface
The ribbon is a hierarchical interface. It's just graphical. For example, in Word the top level hierarchy is File, Home, Insert, Page Layout, References, Mailings, Review, View. Then for example the next level in the Home tab is Clipboard, Font, Paragraph, Styles, Editing. Then each of those is broken down further. This is no different from a textual menu system except that the 3rd level in the hierarchy is visible all at once, so you're always within 2 clicks of 90% of the functions. In the old menu system, it's 3 or more.
rather than an interface based on what MS thinks you want to do
So Microsoft didn't lay out the pre-2007 menu system for you? Not to mention in Office 2010 the ribbon is fully customizable! So if you don't like th way Microsoft chose the layout, you can make your own! What more exactly do you want?
Care to elaborate on exactly what these features are? You know you can also customize the menu now, or make your own shortcuts to these features.