HELP is back in Windows XP and 2k. It isn't like the old DOS help (with pages and pages of the commands, including a list of EVERY DOS command), but it does list all/most of the commands and has a short description of them.
"Honey, *I* think you're perfect. But it's YOUR body, and if YOU think you'd want to change something, I'll still support you and think that you're perfect--just like I do when you cut your hair."
(An optional "but, yeah, that'd be hot!" is only allowed for those of us with loving wives who have grown used to sarcastic comments.)
The problem is that n00bs don't know what "command" to even look up.
And this should be solved at the prompt. There should be a "CLI helper" program, that looks for faulty and natural-language commands and suggests the proper one.
Typing "help" at a typical shell doesn't even give you an overview of useful commands. If you're lucky, you'll get a list (sans description) of the shell-specific commands.
The really, really sad part about this? Windows's command promt works extremely well. It doesn't do everything that Linux's does by far, but learning what it does do is amazingly easy.
I'll repeat. The Federalist Papers et al were discussions about the NATIONAL government. They weren't even state-level considerations.
For more than a 100 years the constition only limited the federal government. If Massachusets wanted to force folk to be Puritain and randomly search households, it was MA's right to do so. And no one had a problem with that, because the Commonwealth of MA was presumed (at the federal level) to be more responsive to the will of its citizenry than a federal government ever could be.
Re:And this is an issue because?
on
Open the Debates
·
· Score: 1
Hiya Twirlip! Sorry to hear the stress has gotten to you, too.
But aside from that, you're mistaken. Senator Kerry did not want to invade Iraq. Well, no, that's not really true. First he did, when it was time to vote on the authorization. Then he didn't when it was time to vote on the funding. Then he did when he started running for president in 2003. Then he didn't when Howard Dean came along and started sucking away all the radical anti-war voters. Then he did when he realized that radical anti-war voters didn't add up to 50% of the electorate.
Can you point me to some speech transcripts, or explanatory memorandums he drafted, or anything concrete that backs up Kerry's flip-flopping?
Yes, I'm currently biased towards the spooky old man. And, yes, I believe that someone having positions and principles is not contrary to compromising and allowing half-measures, especially in a democracy.
But there are parts that Bush & co have said that I do find appealing. I like paying less taxes, so I have money to spend my way. I would like to own my first home in the next four years. I think I would support a constitutional amendment solidifying the current definition of "marriage", so long as it let "marriage equivalents" like those in NJ and VT stand.
So, please, counteract what some virulet character bashing has done and give me a fair chance at voting Republican. I'm an intelligent person who can read legalese and policy-talk. Back up the President's words, convince me, and I'll throw a good half-dozen voters into the red--maybe more.
As for the platforms:
Um. No. Sen. Kerry is opposed to tax reform. He wants to raise taxes. Maybe that's where you got mixed up.
Kerry's stumped on several occasions about closing tax loopholes. So, he's for "reform", but it's for the same broad idea of "reform" that every politician has been for since George Washington.
President Bush wants to give parents school tuition vouchers. Sen. Kerry doesn't.
Excellent clarity of issues.
President Bush wants to make the tax cuts permanent; Sen. Kerry wants to roll them back.
Minor correction (for the A/Cs who we don't want to be misinformed!). Kerry wants to roll tax cuts back for the "rich" - those over $200,000. This may very well slowdown the economy and cost some of those sub-$200k folk their jobs, and raising taxes a little could start a snowball effect where the policial damage is done and the gov't raises taxes a litte more, then a little more... and so on.
I'm all for spin, but omission isn't necessary on a geek site.;)
Sen. Kerry wants to keep Social Security as it is; President Bush wants to introduce privatization initiatives.
Some counterspin here: Kerry wants to try and make the Social Security system work largely as-is, through small measure reform. Bush wants to introduce major reform.
Sen. Kerry wants to make health insurance a federal entitlement; President Bush wants to cut health care and health insurance costs instead.
This issue is, for me, actually a draw. The best health care* I ever had was as a federal entitlement--as a USAF dependent.
Now that i have to manage on my own, either option--either insurance that takes less a bite of my paycheck or minimum coverage provided by my taxes--sounds good enough for me. Then again, I don't get sick or go to the doctor that often.
All of this is public record and should have been taught to you in high school. I find it surprising that your education has been so lax and so full of misinformation. But you're perfectly capable of going to the source and correcting these deficiencies yourself, which I encourage you to do.
Three ad hominem attacks in a row -- and none of which back up your original allegation.
To dive into a flame war: you must be a Republican. No one else in the whole world has miscreants among their number who not only are so uncivil that they attempt to refute any description of their opposite party's name as an adjective of the larger government, but also take up unfounded attacks as something passing for reasonable discourse.
Your party must be ashamed of you, but thankfully their leaders are too polite to either let you steer the path or embarass themselves by responding to you.
Democracy isn't and never has been the best form of government.
Democracy is the natural form of government. All other apparant forms of government are simply more informal about thier elections, occasilly to the point that the people must take up arms to enforce their will.
While I support your ability to pursue this partisan semantical insistence, you're logically wrong.
The fact that the federal and state governments are formed as republics isn't a due to idealism or even cynicism -- rather, it's one chosen because of the impossibility of direct democracy at anything other than the very local level.
Without the American respect for personal liberty, an indirect democracy ("republic") could be as tyrannical as an unfettered direct democracy. Because of this, the right-wing's occasional insistence on calling America a "republic" and not a "democracy" is nothing more than partisan squabbling.
The important thing is that we are democratic - that power flows from the people. If we forget that most basic of elements, then we start down the road to the very tyrannies we've fought against. Every major foe we've had since the Spanish American War has considered itself a "republic."
Democracy is an unstable form of government. That is why the US Constitution specified a republic, and why the move to and adulation of DEMOCRACY has been a bad idea.
Au contrair. Democracy is the best form of government. The problem is that any sizeable form of government either becomes ineffective (a'la the Articles of Confederation) or too tyrannical (a'la King George.)
The Founding Fathers created a Federalist System in which the basic democracy of the people was minimally compromised but the larger government--the "alliance of democracies"--was both effective against threats to liberty and segregated enough to not be itself such a threat.
The "bad idea" isn't a move to Democracy, it's a move AWAY from democracy caused largely by the breakdown of the basic community-unit.
As to your last point--the Constitution, while it contained limits on power, was not by design necessarily limited. It was known that power would creep regardless of the form of government, and as such the necessary process was to divide the power as much as possible.
Considering that the SCOTUS just checked the President's treatment of foreign prisoners, and the POTUS has had to get Congressional approval at regular intervals in the War on Terror, we're hardly ignoring the Constitution.
EVERY feature he noted for AbiWord is one that Word already has. Even that "shrink text when change window size" is in there.
This is why Word is still the dominate WP. It's got at least a little bit of everything you need; if you're willing to live with some odd quirks, you can even use it to replace almost all of the rest of Office.
I bet that some pharohs were kind of upset about that
Why? There's nothing in the uncivilized brain that makes that an untenable aspect--if there were, civilizations wouldn't need the laws we have against it.
Also, I find it strange that with the current climate of acceptable atheism and self directed spiurituality that varys wildly from person to person as a cultural refrence point that almost everyone seems to have the impression that past cultures' populations were all 100% believers, completely succeptible to religious indoctrination.
You're comparing apples on the tree to applesauce.
In ancient times religion occupied the same place as business and science and government does today. If Linus Torvalds, Bill Gates, and Stephen Hawking all say something, we accept it almost without question, en masse. And we have a culture that encourages dissent and discussion!
It's spurious to think that pre-Christian civlizations had any more dissent than Medieval Christianity--whose dissent boils down to "I believe the older set of authorities", not "I don't believe you..."
No. Parody and wholesale reproduction are different things.
The lyrics and music of a song are, for some odd reason, considered different works (or seperable parts of the same work...). Weird Al doesn't have clear fair-use right to use someone's unaltered music or lyrics, so he always asks permission.
As you noted, that "line" is a border below the paragraph you added.
I suggest you recommoned that folk upgrade to either Word XP or Word 2003. The autotext/auto-format smart tags are a great interface for understanding the odd things that Word does, even if you're too lazy to look them up yourself.
Word doesn't use a text-markup document model. OOTH, if you REALLY want to delve into it, save the darn thing as MS-HTML, and look for the O and W tags. They'll tell you what you need to know.
Inside word, however, you just need to know that information is stored at the end of each "object"--paragraph marks, section breaks, etc.
What you should be telling folk is "I recommend you don't use Word, but if you do turn off the "define styles as you type" function."
Tossing Word out becuase you don't know how to use it is like tossing out EMACS because you don't know the command to get into edit-mode.
We treat bigamists, philanderers, pedophiles, and all kind of sexual deviant as if they chose their path. Why should legal sexual deviance* not be treated like a choice?
Part the second:
I think it's a bit disingenious to categorically say homosexuality is a choice and that's that. Homosexuality simply is. Period. Much like people with blue eyes simple exist. There's no choice, it's just there.
Kindly link to a medical journal that points to a physical characteristic that all homosexuals and no heretrosexuals share.
If you can't, get your politics out of your science. I'm not saying that we should outlaw homosexuality, or even taking a 'this isn't a right' stance. (I don't in general--only as a devil's advocate.) I'm saying that sexuality is a choice--and to the best of my knowledge, science agrees with me.
Similarly, a gay person could be in a committed, abstinent relationship and still be gay.
Says who?
we could argue back and forth from here to Sunday about what makes someone "gay." And you know what? We wouldn't get anywhere beyond aknowledging the extremes.
IMO, sexuality isn't a defining characteristic of a person. I might not like raw onions, but that doesn't mean that if I meet the right onion, I won't eat it.
Well that has been the issue for a long time with Gays and the primary reason why they have been so discriminated against is because the old belief that being gay was their choice.
It's not an "old belief." It's the commonly accepted understanding. And it's not just gays.
As a legal necessity, any biological or emotional predisposition towards a sexual relationship of any kind is considered "choice." And, similiarly, any similiar predisposition to a political or economic situation is likewise considered "choice."
So being homosexual is a choice--but you won't see any "democrat re-education" camps working, either.
Slashdot Mirror
HELP is back in Windows XP and 2k. It isn't like the old DOS help (with pages and pages of the commands, including a list of EVERY DOS command), but it does list all/most of the commands and has a short description of them.
Ha! I accept all challenges!
"Do I look fat in this?"
the correct answer: "that dress is too small. Try [insert suggestion here]"
If you cannot answer your wife's questions properly, one of you isn't doing their part in the marriage.
Try this one.:
"Honey, *I* think you're perfect. But it's YOUR body, and if YOU think you'd want to change something, I'll still support you and think that you're perfect--just like I do when you cut your hair."
(An optional "but, yeah, that'd be hot!" is only allowed for those of us with loving wives who have grown used to sarcastic comments.)
The problem is that n00bs don't know what "command" to even look up.
And this should be solved at the prompt. There should be a "CLI helper" program, that looks for faulty and natural-language commands and suggests the proper one.
Typing "help" at a typical shell doesn't even give you an overview of useful commands. If you're lucky, you'll get a list (sans description) of the shell-specific commands.
The really, really sad part about this? Windows's command promt works extremely well. It doesn't do everything that Linux's does by far, but learning what it does do is amazingly easy.
*sigh*
I'll repeat. The Federalist Papers et al were discussions about the NATIONAL government. They weren't even state-level considerations.
For more than a 100 years the constition only limited the federal government. If Massachusets wanted to force folk to be Puritain and randomly search households, it was MA's right to do so. And no one had a problem with that, because the Commonwealth of MA was presumed (at the federal level) to be more responsive to the will of its citizenry than a federal government ever could be.
Hiya Twirlip! Sorry to hear the stress has gotten to you, too.
;)
But aside from that, you're mistaken. Senator Kerry did not want to invade Iraq. Well, no, that's not really true. First he did, when it was time to vote on the authorization. Then he didn't when it was time to vote on the funding. Then he did when he started running for president in 2003. Then he didn't when Howard Dean came along and started sucking away all the radical anti-war voters. Then he did when he realized that radical anti-war voters didn't add up to 50% of the electorate.
Can you point me to some speech transcripts, or explanatory memorandums he drafted, or anything concrete that backs up Kerry's flip-flopping?
Yes, I'm currently biased towards the spooky old man. And, yes, I believe that someone having positions and principles is not contrary to compromising and allowing half-measures, especially in a democracy.
But there are parts that Bush & co have said that I do find appealing. I like paying less taxes, so I have money to spend my way. I would like to own my first home in the next four years. I think I would support a constitutional amendment solidifying the current definition of "marriage", so long as it let "marriage equivalents" like those in NJ and VT stand.
So, please, counteract what some virulet character bashing has done and give me a fair chance at voting Republican. I'm an intelligent person who can read legalese and policy-talk. Back up the President's words, convince me, and I'll throw a good half-dozen voters into the red--maybe more.
As for the platforms:
Um. No. Sen. Kerry is opposed to tax reform. He wants to raise taxes. Maybe that's where you got mixed up.
Kerry's stumped on several occasions about closing tax loopholes. So, he's for "reform", but it's for the same broad idea of "reform" that every politician has been for since George Washington.
President Bush wants to give parents school tuition vouchers. Sen. Kerry doesn't.
Excellent clarity of issues.
President Bush wants to make the tax cuts permanent; Sen. Kerry wants to roll them back.
Minor correction (for the A/Cs who we don't want to be misinformed!). Kerry wants to roll tax cuts back for the "rich" - those over $200,000. This may very well slowdown the economy and cost some of those sub-$200k folk their jobs, and raising taxes a little could start a snowball effect where the policial damage is done and the gov't raises taxes a litte more, then a little more... and so on.
I'm all for spin, but omission isn't necessary on a geek site.
Sen. Kerry wants to keep Social Security as it is; President Bush wants to introduce privatization initiatives.
Some counterspin here: Kerry wants to try and make the Social Security system work largely as-is, through small measure reform. Bush wants to introduce major reform.
Sen. Kerry wants to make health insurance a federal entitlement; President Bush wants to cut health care and health insurance costs instead.
This issue is, for me, actually a draw. The best health care* I ever had was as a federal entitlement--as a USAF dependent.
Now that i have to manage on my own, either option--either insurance that takes less a bite of my paycheck or minimum coverage provided by my taxes--sounds good enough for me. Then again, I don't get sick or go to the doctor that often.
All of this is public record and should have been taught to you in high school. I find it surprising that your education has been so lax and so full of misinformation. But you're perfectly capable of going to the source and correcting these deficiencies yourself, which I encourage you to do.
Three ad hominem attacks in a row -- and none of which back up your original allegation.
To dive into a flame war: you must be a Republican. No one else in the whole world has miscreants among their number who not only are so uncivil that they attempt to refute any description of their opposite party's name as an adjective of the larger government, but also take up unfounded attacks as something passing for reasonable discourse.
Your party must be ashamed of you, but thankfully their leaders are too polite to either let you steer the path or embarass themselves by responding to you.
Why haven't you submitted a political article?
Democracy isn't and never has been the best form of government.
Democracy is the natural form of government. All other apparant forms of government are simply more informal about thier elections, occasilly to the point that the people must take up arms to enforce their will.
While I support your ability to pursue this partisan semantical insistence, you're logically wrong.
The fact that the federal and state governments are formed as republics isn't a due to idealism or even cynicism -- rather, it's one chosen because of the impossibility of direct democracy at anything other than the very local level.
Without the American respect for personal liberty, an indirect democracy ("republic") could be as tyrannical as an unfettered direct democracy. Because of this, the right-wing's occasional insistence on calling America a "republic" and not a "democracy" is nothing more than partisan squabbling.
The important thing is that we are democratic - that power flows from the people. If we forget that most basic of elements, then we start down the road to the very tyrannies we've fought against. Every major foe we've had since the Spanish American War has considered itself a "republic."
Democracy is an unstable form of government. That is why the US Constitution specified a republic, and why the move to and adulation of DEMOCRACY has been a bad idea.
Au contrair. Democracy is the best form of government. The problem is that any sizeable form of government either becomes ineffective (a'la the Articles of Confederation) or too tyrannical (a'la King George.)
The Founding Fathers created a Federalist System in which the basic democracy of the people was minimally compromised but the larger government--the "alliance of democracies"--was both effective against threats to liberty and segregated enough to not be itself such a threat.
The "bad idea" isn't a move to Democracy, it's a move AWAY from democracy caused largely by the breakdown of the basic community-unit.
As to your last point--the Constitution, while it contained limits on power, was not by design necessarily limited. It was known that power would creep regardless of the form of government, and as such the necessary process was to divide the power as much as possible.
Considering that the SCOTUS just checked the President's treatment of foreign prisoners, and the POTUS has had to get Congressional approval at regular intervals in the War on Terror, we're hardly ignoring the Constitution.
I was including the features he noted as "Coming soon."
If you know the math, yes.
Do you have anything that requires moving back to MS Word? A layout program, a PDA document editor, ANYTHING at all?
If so, stick to Word.
Do you not need to move back to Word at all, but require tables, headings, indexes, and TOC?
Then go to OpenOffice.org
Use Abiword only if you just need a "rich text editor". I wouldn't even try to use it to write a dissertation.
EVERY feature he noted for AbiWord is one that Word already has. Even that "shrink text when change window size" is in there.
This is why Word is still the dominate WP. It's got at least a little bit of everything you need; if you're willing to live with some odd quirks, you can even use it to replace almost all of the rest of Office.
I bet that some pharohs were kind of upset about that
Why? There's nothing in the uncivilized brain that makes that an untenable aspect--if there were, civilizations wouldn't need the laws we have against it.
Also, I find it strange that with the current climate of acceptable atheism and self directed spiurituality that varys wildly from person to person as a cultural refrence point that almost everyone seems to have the impression that past cultures' populations were all 100% believers, completely succeptible to religious indoctrination.
You're comparing apples on the tree to applesauce.
In ancient times religion occupied the same place as business and science and government does today. If Linus Torvalds, Bill Gates, and Stephen Hawking all say something, we accept it almost without question, en masse. And we have a culture that encourages dissent and discussion!
It's spurious to think that pre-Christian civlizations had any more dissent than Medieval Christianity--whose dissent boils down to "I believe the older set of authorities", not "I don't believe you..."
Isn't that how Weird Al operates?
No. Parody and wholesale reproduction are different things.
The lyrics and music of a song are, for some odd reason, considered different works (or seperable parts of the same work...). Weird Al doesn't have clear fair-use right to use someone's unaltered music or lyrics, so he always asks permission.
As you noted, that "line" is a border below the paragraph you added.
I suggest you recommoned that folk upgrade to either Word XP or Word 2003. The autotext/auto-format smart tags are a great interface for understanding the odd things that Word does, even if you're too lazy to look them up yourself.
Sheesh.
Word doesn't use a text-markup document model. OOTH, if you REALLY want to delve into it, save the darn thing as MS-HTML, and look for the O and W tags. They'll tell you what you need to know.
Inside word, however, you just need to know that information is stored at the end of each "object"--paragraph marks, section breaks, etc.
What you should be telling folk is "I recommend you don't use Word, but if you do turn off the "define styles as you type" function."
Tossing Word out becuase you don't know how to use it is like tossing out EMACS because you don't know the command to get into edit-mode.
You forgot odd extensions to CSS.
Gecko doesn't handle the FILTER command very well at all.
Yes, if they have *no* sexual activity, then as far as anyone cares they don't have a preference.
Of course, this means NO non-platonic activity at all, which is a higher standard than abstenance.
Part the first:
We treat bigamists, philanderers, pedophiles, and all kind of sexual deviant as if they chose their path. Why should legal sexual deviance* not be treated like a choice?
Part the second:
I think it's a bit disingenious to categorically say homosexuality is a choice and that's that. Homosexuality simply is. Period. Much like people with blue eyes simple exist. There's no choice, it's just there.
Kindly link to a medical journal that points to a physical characteristic that all homosexuals and no heretrosexuals share.
If you can't, get your politics out of your science. I'm not saying that we should outlaw homosexuality, or even taking a 'this isn't a right' stance. (I don't in general--only as a devil's advocate.) I'm saying that sexuality is a choice--and to the best of my knowledge, science agrees with me.
Similarly, a gay person could be in a committed, abstinent relationship and still be gay.
Says who?
we could argue back and forth from here to Sunday about what makes someone "gay." And you know what? We wouldn't get anywhere beyond aknowledging the extremes.
IMO, sexuality isn't a defining characteristic of a person. I might not like raw onions, but that doesn't mean that if I meet the right onion, I won't eat it.
Wrong. It was the US Supreme Court that acted, and their ruling tossed out not only the TX law, but every other similar law in the entire country.
A traffic court can rule sodomy laws unconstituional now. It's as dead as slavery and Jim Crow.
Well that has been the issue for a long time with Gays and the primary reason why they have been so discriminated against is because the old belief that being gay was their choice.
It's not an "old belief." It's the commonly accepted understanding. And it's not just gays.
As a legal necessity, any biological or emotional predisposition towards a sexual relationship of any kind is considered "choice." And, similiarly, any similiar predisposition to a political or economic situation is likewise considered "choice."
So being homosexual is a choice--but you won't see any "democrat re-education" camps working, either.
Any physical skill improves with practice and diminishes without practice.
Only when practice actually tests your skill.
Or are you saying that you get "better" at opening the refrigerator door with practice?