You seem to be confused again: intensity is not the same as intensity over an area. Candela is intensity, lux is intensity per unit area.
A good units dictionary should tell you that the lux is the new name for the metre-candle. It follows any unit Length-Source is the intensity of flux from a source at distance Lenght from it. From the example I used, it was intended to be an intensity some distance from a source.
I'm sorry, perhaps I have to repeat myself: the liter is not an SI unit. Understand?
Any unit intended to be used as part of a system is part of the system. Anything over that is unbridled pedentry.
Acrefeet use two combined units of measurement to convey the same amount of information; that seems quite useless and unnecessary.
So is Coulomb-metres, Ampere-hours, metres per second. It's called "multiplication".
A million here is a quantity, not a number.
What's the difference?
Quanties are measured, and change when the units do. Numbers are counted, and do not change. So a "million dollars" is entirely different animal to "one million one-dollar coins". Most people who have a million dollars do not have it all in one-dollar peices.
The mole has been around since 1850. It was accepted as a base unit in 1973 or something.
The mole appears as a derived unit in the International Critical Table of 1922, as a long established unit. It did not become a base unit until 1973. Reference for this is a number of unit dictionaries.
All my claims in my previous post were referenced and backed by a government-run science-oriented website.
The sort of site that you refer to reflect current prefered usage, not historical development. You obviously chose to ignore the definition of "ampere" there.
I know very well the def'n of the Ampere; I'm an electrical engineer, I use it every day. The Ampere is a Coulomb of charge passing a point per second.
It's actually defined in terms of Ampere's law, applied to two infinite conductors placed one metre apart. One ampere flowing through each of these conductors will exert a force of 2e-7 Newtons per metre of conductor. The definition has three variables, R=distance apart, L= section of conductor, and F=force. The maths cancels out R and L, so you can replace "metre" with "foot", "centimetre" or "mile" without upsetting the definition, but the ampere depends on sqrt(Newton). When you subst "(kg.m/s^2)^1/2" for "A" in the definitions, you will see that the "H/m" becomes "1", ie is independant of the size of the metre, kilogram and second.
Once again, you seem to be seriously misunderstanding the meaning of base and derived and convey to me that you have a very shaky understanding of mathematics:
1. y = x + 1 (look! y is a function of x!)
2. x = y - 1 (gasp! now x is a function of y!)
This is because I bothered to check the "definitions", and worked out what is truely independent. The choice of H/m was not accidental: it's the unit of the magnetic permeability, which is, when you read the definition of the ampere, the thing actually being defined.
Two paragraphs ago, you said the lux was not an SI unit. Actually, the lumen is the base definition.
lol. You're too funny. The lux is not an SI unit, and nowhere did I say it was. I said it was a derived unit and has the following relationship: cd/m^2.
We both made errors here. Let's call this one quits, and note that the lux is an SI derived unit = cd sr/m^2. The latest definition of the candela goes through the lumen, and depends on the size of the Watt.
Well obviously you're dealing with a completely different situation then. You're dealing with flux over a unit area in the latter case versus flux over unit distance in the former, so C does not magically equal 12.566C. I don't see what the problem is here. What is your point?
He's an electrical engineer, and has never heard of "rationalisation", where the factor 4pi magically shifted around equations. In the cgs system, total flux from a point charge is flux = 4pi charge. In SI, it is flux = charge. So a coulomb of charge gives 4 pi C under a non-rationalised system, and 1 C flux under a rationalised system. Hence 4 pi C (unrationalised) = 1 C rationalised. Same units, same dimension, different numbers.
This is known from reading material. It is the unit that Newton and Coulomb worked in, for example.
You wanna bet how much of a pain it is? Remember the Mars craft which was fed incorrect values due to unit conversion?
You should read the footnote where Maxwell comes to the conclusion that light is an vibration in the electromagnetic ether. It's got a hideous number of units, and some mis-conversions in that as well. He confuses the sea mile (6000 ft) and the nautical mile (6080 ft).
Capacities are'nt though. Why not?
They should be since capacity and volume are the same type of measurement. Except that bulk comparisons are more accurate in commercial applications then linear measures. Hence the different names.
Sorry, but bragging doesn't work for people who are wrong. You should really try thinking and doing some of that research yourself. Perhaps you can start by reading that website I linked to. I'll make it easy for you: it's here [nist.gov].
Sorry, I am not wrong. A technical education does not make you a historian in weights and measures. It means that you know how to put wires into things. Understanding the history and basis of weights and measures is a different field.
Yes, I am familiar with this definition. I am also familiar with the other definitions. The one that takes precedence is 1 day = 86400 seconds: that is, 1 day = 24 hours, 1 hour = 60 minutes, 1 minute = 60 second (minutes). All other definitions are adjusted to preserve this relation.
Look at the source, not this week's definition. Previously 1 second was a fraction of the mean year 1900.
Isn't this a dead give-away. System = collection of units used together: International = hodgepodge designed to clip the wings of foreign aspirations. Enough said WTF are you talking about? Care to explain this? Obviously not enough said.
Actually, you would more easily understand the intensity of a kilometre-candle, (ie a candle at a kilometre), rather than a metre-microcandle, (ie a millionth of a candle at a metre), which is what a microlux is all about.
Of course, had you any idea what you were talking about, you'd know that microlux is not an SI unit. The candela (cd) is the unit of luminous intensity.
The intensity of light in this item was originally measured in foot-candles, the intensity at one foot from one candle. Now, the metre-candle is called a lux, and a microlux is either a kilometre-candle, or metre-microcandle, both of which is 0.000001 lux, or one microlux.
An acrefoot? lol. Ya, that's real intuitive for people who have heard of neither acres, nor feet.
Nor are litres and metres, for people who never seen them. Most people have difficulty grappling with visualising large numbers, anyway.
When I tried to visualise the scale of the WTC, I chose to multiply a skyscraper by five, rather than the house I live in by 55.
Also, once again if you knew what you were talking about, you'd have known that the liter isn't an SI unit either. Volume is measured in cubic meters which is very easy to grasp.
It's actually in one of the supplementry tables.
Perhaps for simple minds. You telling me you can't grasp 1 million dollars?
A million here is a quantity, not a number.
They only have seven, because the the system is a botch-up that they HAD to have 7.
No, you see it's called good design. You put something in if it makes sense that it should be there, because it is, in fact, a distinct entity.
The mole was only invented as a base because SI did not want to use the coherent kilomole.
The mole has been around since 1850. It was accepted as a base unit in 1973 or something. Reason, because chemists regard the mole as a derived unit. SI upsets the mass-mole relation, so they had to make it a base unit.
The base unit "Ampere" depends on the size of the metre and kilogram, but the "Henry per metre" is free of such dependancies.
Read the definition of the ampere, and do the maths of actual dependancies, before you objec to this.
The henry is m^2kg/(s^2A^2), therefore the "Henry kilogram per meter squared" is free of them.
Whence A^2 = kg.m/s^2.[H/m]
The lux is derived and is defined as: cd/m^2.
Two paragraphs ago, you said the lux was not an SI unit. Actually, the lumen is the base definition.
Some is the operative word here. Rationalisation throws a spanner in the works. 1 C translates into 12.566 C, if flux is being refered to.
The flux of an souece can be measured in different ways. In CGS electrics, with light, and so forth, unit flux intensity is had at unit distance from unit source. The total flux over a sphere is then 4pi of that source. Rationalisation makes the total flux the same as the source, and so factors of 4pi creep in.
The pre-metric system used by scientists was Paris feet. Not having a precise widely used measurement system does not hinder much of science.
This is known from reading material. It is the unit that Newton and Coulomb worked in, for example.
Yes actually. Volume is not measured in liters, but in cubic meters. Capacities are'nt though.
Considering that you've made a fool of yourself in this post by trying to criticize something of which you apparently know very little, you now have zero credibility.
Oh well, none of your comments stuck. Maybe you should take the foot out of your mouth, and use it to head off to the library and do some research, first.
The number of base units is not a fixed constant, but an arbitary statement of unit derivation. In the imperial system, time, temperature, moles, light and angle are all supplemental scales, not units to be defined externally.
So where the CGS mole is derived from the gram and the the fps, the lb-mole derives from the pound, the SI mole does not coherently derive from the kg, so they had to invent a new base unit for it, and deal with it separately.
Leo Young had six base units where the cgs has three and the SI has four.
The metre is currenlty defined as 1/299792458 light seconds. From 1900 to 1963, the litre was defined as the volume of a kilogram of air-free water, at STP, and was 1000.027 cu cm water. The Litre is not "a handy unit": reproducing volumes by bulk comparison (ie pouring or weighing) is more accurate than from its linear measures. Dry capacities (grain, fruit and so on), dropped out once scales became cheap enough to enter the market place, around the 1870's or so.
I have a whole range of physics where the volume of a cube is six times the cube of the side. You just don't know that there is more than one "multiply" hanging around [hint: think of dot vs cross products]. The definition of the square and cubic metre are in fact, semi-base units. This is because the multiplication is not unique.
The real issue is that the tables only show a list of accepted units, not their usage. You don't go saying you're 1 m 90 cm high. You say 190 cm, not 1.9 m or 1900 mm.
And, while you're at it, so is inch=ounce=1/12, scruple=1/288, minim, minute=1/60, second=1/3600, third=1/216000, drachm=1/96, calculus=1/6912, nail=clove=1/16, firkin=quart=quarter=1/4. They're all factions.
Isn't this a dead give-away. System = collection of units used together: International = hodgepodge designed to clip the wings of foreign aspirations. Enough said
..it also makes things much easier to understand in your head..
Actually, you would more easily understand the intensity of a kilometre-candle, (ie a candle at a kilometre), rather than a metre-microcandle, (ie a millionth of a candle at a metre), which is what a microlux is all about. Also, an acrefoot is an easier volume to grasp than a Megalitre, although they're the same size. People convert sheets of paper into stacks miles high because thousands and millions can not be grasped.
7 base units
CGS had only three, and seemed to work OK with that. I've used systems with one base unit. All this means is how many equations you plan to leave out of the derived theory.
They only have seven, because the the system is a botch-up that they HAD to have 7. The mole was only invented as a base because SI did not want to use the coherent kilomole. The base unit "Ampere" depends on the size of the metre and kilogram, but the "Henry per metre" is free of such dependancies. Yet the "Ampere is afforded the status of "base unit". The size of the candela depends on the square metre, but the lux does not.
Sad about the mass unit having a derived name...
you try telling me what 27 miles is in feet
Don't have to. Because I don't do that sort of conversion at all. Really.
be able to have some idea of exactly what each derived unit means
Some is the operative word here. Rationalisation throws a spanner in the works. 1 C translates into 12.566 C, if flux is being refered to.
Really, it is perfectly logical, and a heck of a lot simpler to learn than the old Imperial or Imperial-derived systems, where there were about 3 times as many different base units.
The imperial system has three base units; yard, pound and gallon. All the rest are supplemental. Somehow, three by seven is three. Good one.
Also, if you are sticking to SI notation to the letter, it is plain from the name of the derived unit exactly how it is derived from the base units.
I did way better with no units, in a google system. In essence, 1 s = 1e100, 1 m = 1e1100, 1 kg = 1e73300, 1 A = 1e32100. Decimal prefixes are just added in: 1 cm = 1e1098. Do unit and exponent calculations all in the same column. The units are far enough apart that you can do the unit sums and exponents with a calculator, and you don't have to remember individual dimensions.
yes, partly because scientists want to be able to understand each other
The pre-metric system used by scientists was Paris feet. Not having a precise widely used measurement system does not hinder much of science.
Why measure volumes in litres. Doesn't the cubic metre cope with this??? No. Volumes are derived from the linear measures, and are very hard to reproduce. Capacity is done by bulk comparison, and is very easy to use: ergo, litres, gallons, bushels.
Also, if you are sticking to SI notation to the letter, it is plain from the name of the derived unit exactly how it is derived from the base units
And from this, we can see immediately how "Weber" is derived from "Metre", "kilogram", "second", and "ampere". Get real.
NT and OS/2 both write "EA DATA. SF" files in the root directory of FAT partitions on floppies.
MS reccomends deleting the OS/2 subsystem to make the system secure, but not the DOS system. This would only be meaningful if OS/2 bypasses the file system.
The WinNT 3.x boot sector and the OS/2 1.3 boot sector are IDENTICAL, including the OS/2 messages.
Technet has no articles on how to add VMS commands to NT. They do describe how to add OS/2 commands, how to get OS/2 rexx &c to run under NT. These work under Win2K as well. I have run OS/2 commands under NT.
The original working name for Windows NT was OS/2 NT.
Windows NT help, the resource kit &c all speak of a product MS OS/2. There really was a product of this name, it was absorbed into Windows NT, and there were plugins that support the OS/2 1.x PM programs.
The size of the "OS/2" subsystem is mysteriously small, compared even to the DOS one, but this is easily accounted for, if you assume it passes many calls down to the kernel: that is, the kernel is based on OS/2.
On the other hand, there is relatively little going for the arguement that it is based on VMS, apart from some wishful thinking, or because OS/2 might also be so based.
I mean, the NAME might be, but then one can make a program "user friendly" by so stamping it.
The nautical mile is intended to be a arc minute at the surface of the earth, so that angular minutes are read directly to nautical miles.
An imperial nautical mile is 6080 ft, a metric nautical mile is 1852 metres. The original metric system was intended to be a circle divided into 400 degrees of 100 minutes. In this version, the kilometre would be the replacement for the nautical mile. But the angle system never took off.
So hour is not a metric measure, so why don't you just say 82.3 m/s and be done with it. Or are you going to cling to your illogical hours? For us common folk, 160 knots says it all.
Force of engines are measured in a common unit, which happens to be the kilonewton. Just like clothing is measured in centimetres, not metres or millimetres. Hint: people compare numbers on the expectation that a standard unit will be used where convenient.
I still use OS/2, DOS, Windows, BeOS, and Linux. It's how I got my IT job, actually, and how I choose to record my cdroms. Oh well.
Spelling came before spelling rules. Truely is not incorrect, it is just not the "correct" spelling. But it has only one meaning, and you truly parsed it, sister.
I suppose you are an MSCE, who is lockstepped into believing what Redmond tells you. If you don't see what's going on, how else will you see what's coming. I saw all this coming in OS/2 five or six years ago. Like I said, OS/2 is the future now, then as now.
Proof: IBM supports OS/2 to paying customers and ignores the home user. Isn't that where MS is heading.... Windows NT is just a downgraded version of OS/2 v 1.3.
Imperial, freezing is at 32, boiling at 212
celcius, freezing at 0, boiling at 100
Nothing special about these temperature points. The only one that matters is absolute zero = 0. I mean, there are 180 degrees fahrenheit because of historical accident, but at least Fahrenheit adjusted his scale so that fractions would not occur in normal use. The original Roemer units were four times the size. (ie Fahr / 4 both size and scale).
Reameur scale is at least logical in that its degrees represent the increase in volume as 1000 units of alcohol are heated. It ranges from 0 to 80.
Without further comment, the Celcius temperature had freezing at 100, and boiling at 0. The current scale was called Centigrade, but Celcuis was coopted when everyone forgot about the mark I fiasco.
AngleYes, the wonderful simplicity of the metric system, which was intended to replace all measures, did supprisingly poor on angle and time. Despite the so-called decimal advantage, and that the kilometre was intended to be a centisimal minute at the surface of the earth, and so replace nautical mile, neither the decimal division of the quadrant, or day took off. When you calculate the speeds in decimal days, you will start to see the silliness of unrestrained decimals:
1 km/h = 2.4 km/H = 0.24 m/S, and 1 mph = 4 km/H = 0.4 m/S. Speed limit in usa = 55 mph = 220 km/H. (1d = 10 H = 1000 M = 10000 S.
Distance. A furlong is 660 feet, as anyone can see. A mile is clearly 5280 feet, as it should.
Imperial ounces don't exist. They're avoirdepoise, troy, or fluid ounces. The context defines the missing adjective. Just as it does with cubic, square and linear measure.
And while you're at it, I notice that you are supprisingly silent on mill, a length, angle and volume, or K, a number, temperature, distance, mass, speed. The truth is, that relying too heavily on a matrix naming does lead to lots of confusion. We won't even go into the prefixes like deci vs deka.
10 mm to the cm
100 cm to the meter
1000 meters to the kilometer
1000 ml to the liter
It is of course interesting here, that apart from preaching how the metric system uses prefixes and so forth, how the "centilitre" is noticably absent. Even more so the nightmare of deci- vs deka, hecto, or Myria-. Oh well. There goes consistancy.
Both systems suffer from the Roman weight-fraction legacy. An uncia was a 12th measure, this gives the foot of 12 inches, and the troy lb of 12 ounces, and an hour of 12 ounces. Mind you, any metric unit divides into 1000 mills. Depending on context, the builder's mill is the mm, where the chemist's mil is a ml. And we won't even worry about "gammas", a mass and magnetic field, and "lambdas" a volume, and "micros" a mass, not to be confused with "microns", a length, or "ohm", a capacity and resistance unit, or "farad" (a capacatance) vs "faraday" (any of a number of electrical charge units).
Metric is still bound by the same sorts of mentality that drives the imperial system. One talks of millions of kilometres, not *gigametres, or "tonnes", not "Megagrams". So much for "logic". Mind you, the names are wildly long that people look for shorter names.
And we won't even worry too much about a large number of special symbols that you need to express its units (eg raised 2, 3, greek Omega, mu). Like, you can't write sq m, you have to put m^2. Where I can write ft or Ft or FT, mm, Mm and MM can be milli or mega- metres.
What's even more impressing is that the prefixes are both patchy, and overload letters, for example, m and M differ by nine orders of magnitude (milli, and mega), and somewhere we got to squease a third m for micro into this lot. Luckily, we can steal the greek mu for this end.
The whole prefix multiple system has been coopted into computing, where one can use K as 1000 or 1024, depending on what your needs are. Megs, Gigs and so on are simply K*K, K*K*K &c. So a 1.44 MB floppy is actually 1.44 * 1000 * 1024. Hmmm.
Metric is MUCH simpler than imperial.
I seriously doubt this, too. The numbers that metric are easier to convert between one and another unit, but I can not seem to recall doing conversions from capacity to volume units all that often, that rough rules could not handle. But to achieve this simplicity, much had to be sacraficed.
Please get the units right. These are measures quoted in the article, rended into the confusing metrics, for people insisting on using that system.
160 knots = 160.1023 knots (metric)
6200 ft = 1889.76 m.
400 lb = 1.779 kN.
Areal and nautical speeds are measured in knots, not miles per hour, or km/h or cms.
Force of engines is measured in kilonewtons, not newtons.
But what would you convert the units into? Metric, or regular.
The whole idea of metric is that we should put all of our eggs in the one basket, so that people with certian brain defects would not be able to understand it. I found little logical in it to understand what people see so wonderful in it, and I have studied it for thirty years now.
Dead Microspeak: disappeared; no longer in use. Real Meaning: a product that does not have monopoly market share. Usage: "It's only a matter of time before Netscape Navigator is *dead*." Agenda: To make everyone think that as soon as a Microsoft product is leveraged into a high market share, all the alternatives instantly vaporize.
IBM pull more profit from OS/2 then RedHat makes revenue. It is better supported, and was the original inspiration that made Linux possible. I mean, TeamOS2 was the first grass-roots movement that showed that people could move an OS by themselves.
Sure, Linux is based on bits and peices from free UNIX stuff, but there's a lot of OS/2 and TeamOS2 mentality in it.
OS/2 is the future now. If OS/2 dies now, maybe the whole industry dies in five year's time.
And, by the way, it's a pretty narrow-minded person who can only spell a word one way.
If a million monkeys type out the source code to MS Office.
Isn't that how it was written in the first place anyway?
Or three monkeys, two hours. Might have been a rat-dance or a whirlwind, actually. That's more coherent.
Scientists have proposed models that are as probable as "whirlwinds going through junkyards, and assembling a Boeing 747". Maybe MS Office is that sort of event.
Having read the EULA in question, it DOES place exactly the sort of restrictions as I have indicated. The way that the EULA that I have for it reads, it does not specifically state web components. Is HTML a web component? The term "web component" is undefined. And having seen what MS does with undefined terms, I would be afraid of this.
That MS has overstepped the steps necessary to protect the unauthorised reproduction of its licenced IP, and the misuse of its trademarks, should be regarded as a threat to the freedom of speech.
Next, they will be saying you can't use their compiler to compile a competing wordprocessor, or any product that competes, replaces or interferes with their extant or potential products. Well.
If MS is inserting into its licenses, conditions of approved content, then they may well be stepping on the jurisdiction of the judge.
There is a certian right to protect the IP rights of a work, which is limited to the use of the work and derived copies. This means that MS can restrict the production and distribution of copies of their work.
There is also the certian right of association of "good name". This means, that if I write on some subject, then I can have you disassociate your work against mine. This was done, for example with Karl Marx and the "survival of the fittest". In the present context, it means the use of MS logos on sites that disparage MS.
But one can not prevent one from using a companies works, legally acquired, to fight against a company, as long as the product is not identified.
The licence as provided is not aimed at the protection of abuse of the intellectual property it covers, but to cover other IP not implied in the license. That is, the licence implies that you should protect IP that you are not being given special access to. It might be interesting to test this role of restraint in court, especially since the annual license thing has been deemed rental in Germany, with the implied restriction of owner (ie MS) fixes.
The other thing is that judges might not take kindly to other people dishing out punishment for crimes that they decide punishment for. For example, if I were to create a hate site, and such a site were legal, than MS could still punish me. If the judge decides it were illegal, than the judge punishes me, and this is all I should pay, not an additional punishment from MS.
What the EULA also grants, by undefined terms "hate, porn", is that they can control content. And for this control of content, they might also be leaving themselves open to the legal content of sites [... by acting as an editor, you become responsible for content...]
Certification does bring with it an exposure to a certian range of learning. For example, an MSCE exposes you to antique networking. With A+ you get to pull a pc apart and put it together again.
But what I have found, especially with the MSCE stuff, is that they look only at the MS solutions, and never at the competition. So you get this legacy certificate in legacy software. MS is in the process of cancelling their NT4 certs, and getting modern drivers for NT4 is hard to do. The point is, if you want third party stuff, support it. It's the same all the way around.
With third party certification, at least they teach you practical things, although the A+ software course I was on was a five day MS ad.
But it took me a grand total of 12 minutes to pass the exams. The fun thing was that in the the servey (which uses the exam question), selecting "no further course" is a wrong answer. Well...
It's OK with the two replies. Thanks for the songs. But I have never been one to wave the flag in front of the troops: I leave that for the boys.
Democracy flourishes because people choose to disagree. That you and I continue to hold our own divers views, and not come to blows over it is what democracy is all about. That we hold our views strongly means that we care for our views, however different, and that's important, too.
Yes, it has been nice debating with you, and I hope you find something that will keep you in money. Loosing one's job is fretting, I have done it many times myself.
If the intent is to divide the book up into web-sized documents, you should divide the chapter into two-page segments. Have an index page at each chapter start. This makes navigation much easier. The stories that I embed into help files have about 2K of text per panel. You might do a few pages of novel, per panel, but if it's too big, you may get lost in it. You can also use the # tag as well, to bookmark bits of the same page. This makes it easier for a person to get to that panel.
An alternative is to look at PDF formats. Adobe Acrobat installs itself as a print driver, and you can then lay the document out as a single PDF, with all the necessary cross platform support, especially if you stick to version 3 output.
TeX is a lot of hard work, from what I recall, but the results are spectular. It's sort of like Word => Word Perfect for DOS => TeX. [Increasing power and decreasing friendlyness].
You would be better going for LaTeX. This is a wrapper around TeX, but more intended for authors, rather than fiddly page layout.
Spell checking, editing and other luxuries are done externally. So you have to hunt around. I found that the CTAN archives are good to start at, or a 4CD-ROM TeX cd, which has all the required goodies on it at a fraction of the download costs.
Anyway, Best of Luck with your endeavours, and it has been nice talking to you. I even learnt things:)
Viruses are liveable with, you just have to know what to back up. Include your normal.dat and any other templates you use. I never had much trouble with them either, even though I open documents all over the place. If you are paranoid, you could pass out the word viewer with your documents, and use it to read incoming documents. There is also a setting that blocks macros but I don't recall where. It's irritating feature is that people override it before thinking, because it pops up all the time. Oh well.
Keep an alternate version of normal.dot, and periodically back up current documents. It's not the macro viruses that do the damage (these come from using infected documents in word). The real killer is the printer tables stored in the document. I have had word trash documents.
I've seen word do this if you heavily edit the document. Word 2000 seems to have an autorecovery.
I don't think word processors, despite what the documentation says, are good for book sized material. HTML is abysmal for it. I mean, it chokes on a 2MB file, usually. Word generated HTML and RTF is way overloaded.
It's hard to say what should be used as an alternate to word processors, but I am toying with TeX. It's a right pain to use, but it produces spectactular results. Still, each to his own.
Word processors are best for up to about a chapter sized thing, but longer than that, the risk of eating documents comes too great. It's hard to say which is the best, because I have lost lots of stuff to many of the programs I have used. Working in big documents in Amipro was painful as well. The 16 bit version works under Win95.
Yes, I did notice the karma kid visit us. Must have thought we were interesting...
You do not have a right to prevent the recording of any particular episode, or the subsequent use of that data to allow that episode to end. For example, I can take your picture, or take your credit card details, and use this data legitimately to allow a purchace that you made happen.
Public spectacles are not copyrightable. You can not copyright a fire-works, or yourself walking in a clown suit.
You have the right to record details of events you were involved in as well. For example, you may take copies of e:mail, chats, and postings that you were involved or interested in.
You are entitled to privacy. What this means is that you have some right that someone else will not engage in actions that will bring together disperse episodes of your life. That is, a person engaging in one or more actions that brings together a series of your events, is invading your privacy.
A person who, by noting your actions, assigns you to a list of people noted for having the same actions, is also invading your privacy.
The reason being, is that your inclusion in a list may be a misrepresentation of what you really are. My interest in product X does not mean that I support it, but may just be sussing the class that X belongs to.
People who act to preserve their privacy, do so in a way that prevents search tags being assigned to their events.
It is the processing, not the recording of events, that invades privacy. Please understand this.
Unfortunately it is that the existing laws do not cater for the current realities. You see, the law are designed on the assumption that copying is an expensive task that few would do. Therefore the penalties are stiff.
The problems that we are dealing with are that it's very easy to copy. What we need to look at is how to deal with the notion that the natural restraint of cost no longer applies to copying and tracking. Something was looked at in the cassette thing, and in the videotaping of shows.
People who make IP works, such as books, music or software, have a legitimate right to be paid for it. The question is how to we pay for these. Under the old days, we paid them a bounty on copying, because the copy was hard to make and easy to control. Hence the notion of copyright.
But if copying is now easy to do, and can be done by anyone with a computer, maybe we need a new controlling token to pay the IP owner. I just don't know: I'm identifying the underlying issue.
And as far as IP goes, there are lots of whinges when software vendors, music publishers and co DO protect their IP, eg
Universal Records and their "can't play on a PC" albums,
Microsoft and the "you must authorenticate to us to use this product" thing,
dongles and other hardware things, [daisychained dongles...]
keydisks, and keyfiles.
The sad thing is that it hurts the legit buyers, because the pirutes and crackers would have found a loop past all of this.:)
When you buy some software, or a book, or a record, you own the distribution media, and a licence to use the material contained thereon. Even though I don't own "Amipro" or "Imagine" or "Regular Polytopes", I do own a licence to use a copy of it on my machine. Buying any of these do not give me the right to set myself up as a redistributer.
So, technically, you don't own the copyright to the software, you do own the right to use a copy of it, and to hold such backups of the media as allowed in the agreement.
And it is that right that you might transfer under the cover of sale.
Slashdot Mirror
A good units dictionary should tell you that the lux is the new name for the metre-candle. It follows any unit Length-Source is the intensity of flux from a source at distance Lenght from it. From the example I used, it was intended to be an intensity some distance from a source.
I'm sorry, perhaps I have to repeat myself: the liter is not an SI unit. Understand?
Any unit intended to be used as part of a system is part of the system. Anything over that is unbridled pedentry.
Acrefeet use two combined units of measurement to convey the same amount of information; that seems quite useless and unnecessary. So is Coulomb-metres, Ampere-hours, metres per second. It's called "multiplication".
A million here is a quantity, not a number.
What's the difference? Quanties are measured, and change when the units do. Numbers are counted, and do not change. So a "million dollars" is entirely different animal to "one million one-dollar coins". Most people who have a million dollars do not have it all in one-dollar peices.
The mole has been around since 1850. It was accepted as a base unit in 1973 or something.
The mole appears as a derived unit in the International Critical Table of 1922, as a long established unit. It did not become a base unit until 1973. Reference for this is a number of unit dictionaries.
All my claims in my previous post were referenced and backed by a government-run science-oriented website.
The sort of site that you refer to reflect current prefered usage, not historical development. You obviously chose to ignore the definition of "ampere" there.
I know very well the def'n of the Ampere; I'm an electrical engineer, I use it every day. The Ampere is a Coulomb of charge passing a point per second.
It's actually defined in terms of Ampere's law, applied to two infinite conductors placed one metre apart. One ampere flowing through each of these conductors will exert a force of 2e-7 Newtons per metre of conductor. The definition has three variables, R=distance apart, L= section of conductor, and F=force. The maths cancels out R and L, so you can replace "metre" with "foot", "centimetre" or "mile" without upsetting the definition, but the ampere depends on sqrt(Newton). When you subst "(kg.m/s^2)^1/2" for "A" in the definitions, you will see that the "H/m" becomes "1", ie is independant of the size of the metre, kilogram and second.
Once again, you seem to be seriously misunderstanding the meaning of base and derived and convey to me that you have a very shaky understanding of mathematics:
1. y = x + 1 (look! y is a function of x!)
2. x = y - 1 (gasp! now x is a function of y!)
This is because I bothered to check the "definitions", and worked out what is truely independent. The choice of H/m was not accidental: it's the unit of the magnetic permeability, which is, when you read the definition of the ampere, the thing actually being defined.
Two paragraphs ago, you said the lux was not an SI unit. Actually, the lumen is the base definition. lol. You're too funny. The lux is not an SI unit, and nowhere did I say it was. I said it was a derived unit and has the following relationship: cd/m^2.
We both made errors here. Let's call this one quits, and note that the lux is an SI derived unit = cd sr/m^2. The latest definition of the candela goes through the lumen, and depends on the size of the Watt.
Well obviously you're dealing with a completely different situation then. You're dealing with flux over a unit area in the latter case versus flux over unit distance in the former, so C does not magically equal 12.566C. I don't see what the problem is here. What is your point?
He's an electrical engineer, and has never heard of "rationalisation", where the factor 4pi magically shifted around equations. In the cgs system, total flux from a point charge is flux = 4pi charge. In SI, it is flux = charge. So a coulomb of charge gives 4 pi C under a non-rationalised system, and 1 C flux under a rationalised system. Hence 4 pi C (unrationalised) = 1 C rationalised. Same units, same dimension, different numbers.
This is known from reading material. It is the unit that Newton and Coulomb worked in, for example.
You wanna bet how much of a pain it is? Remember the Mars craft which was fed incorrect values due to unit conversion?
You should read the footnote where Maxwell comes to the conclusion that light is an vibration in the electromagnetic ether. It's got a hideous number of units, and some mis-conversions in that as well. He confuses the sea mile (6000 ft) and the nautical mile (6080 ft).
Capacities are'nt though. Why not?
They should be since capacity and volume are the same type of measurement. Except that bulk comparisons are more accurate in commercial applications then linear measures. Hence the different names.
Sorry, but bragging doesn't work for people who are wrong. You should really try thinking and doing some of that research yourself. Perhaps you can start by reading that website I linked to. I'll make it easy for you: it's here [nist.gov].
Sorry, I am not wrong. A technical education does not make you a historian in weights and measures. It means that you know how to put wires into things. Understanding the history and basis of weights and measures is a different field.
Have a nice day!
Yes, I am familiar with this definition. I am also familiar with the other definitions. The one that takes precedence is 1 day = 86400 seconds: that is, 1 day = 24 hours, 1 hour = 60 minutes, 1 minute = 60 second (minutes). All other definitions are adjusted to preserve this relation.
Look at the source, not this week's definition. Previously 1 second was a fraction of the mean year 1900.
Actually, you would more easily understand the intensity of a kilometre-candle, (ie a candle at a kilometre), rather than a metre-microcandle, (ie a millionth of a candle at a metre), which is what a microlux is all about. Of course, had you any idea what you were talking about, you'd know that microlux is not an SI unit. The candela (cd) is the unit of luminous intensity.
The intensity of light in this item was originally measured in foot-candles, the intensity at one foot from one candle. Now, the metre-candle is called a lux, and a microlux is either a kilometre-candle, or metre-microcandle, both of which is 0.000001 lux, or one microlux.
An acrefoot? lol. Ya, that's real intuitive for people who have heard of neither acres, nor feet.
Nor are litres and metres, for people who never seen them. Most people have difficulty grappling with visualising large numbers, anyway. When I tried to visualise the scale of the WTC, I chose to multiply a skyscraper by five, rather than the house I live in by 55.
Also, once again if you knew what you were talking about, you'd have known that the liter isn't an SI unit either. Volume is measured in cubic meters which is very easy to grasp. It's actually in one of the supplementry tables.
Perhaps for simple minds. You telling me you can't grasp 1 million dollars?
A million here is a quantity, not a number.
They only have seven, because the the system is a botch-up that they HAD to have 7. No, you see it's called good design. You put something in if it makes sense that it should be there, because it is, in fact, a distinct entity. The mole was only invented as a base because SI did not want to use the coherent kilomole. The mole has been around since 1850. It was accepted as a base unit in 1973 or something. Reason, because chemists regard the mole as a derived unit. SI upsets the mass-mole relation, so they had to make it a base unit.
The base unit "Ampere" depends on the size of the metre and kilogram, but the "Henry per metre" is free of such dependancies.
Read the definition of the ampere, and do the maths of actual dependancies, before you objec to this.
The henry is m^2kg/(s^2A^2), therefore the "Henry kilogram per meter squared" is free of them.
Whence A^2 = kg.m/s^2.[H/m]
The lux is derived and is defined as: cd/m^2.
Two paragraphs ago, you said the lux was not an SI unit. Actually, the lumen is the base definition.
Some is the operative word here. Rationalisation throws a spanner in the works. 1 C translates into 12.566 C, if flux is being refered to.
The flux of an souece can be measured in different ways. In CGS electrics, with light, and so forth, unit flux intensity is had at unit distance from unit source. The total flux over a sphere is then 4pi of that source. Rationalisation makes the total flux the same as the source, and so factors of 4pi creep in.The pre-metric system used by scientists was Paris feet. Not having a precise widely used measurement system does not hinder much of science. This is known from reading material. It is the unit that Newton and Coulomb worked in, for example.
Yes actually. Volume is not measured in liters, but in cubic meters. Capacities are'nt though.
Considering that you've made a fool of yourself in this post by trying to criticize something of which you apparently know very little, you now have zero credibility.
Oh well, none of your comments stuck. Maybe you should take the foot out of your mouth, and use it to head off to the library and do some research, first.
Have a nice day!
The number of base units is not a fixed constant, but an arbitary statement of unit derivation. In the imperial system, time, temperature, moles, light and angle are all supplemental scales, not units to be defined externally.
So where the CGS mole is derived from the gram and the the fps, the lb-mole derives from the pound, the SI mole does not coherently derive from the kg, so they had to invent a new base unit for it, and deal with it separately.
Leo Young had six base units where the cgs has three and the SI has four.
The metre is currenlty defined as 1/299792458 light seconds. From 1900 to 1963, the litre was defined as the volume of a kilogram of air-free water, at STP, and was 1000.027 cu cm water. The Litre is not "a handy unit": reproducing volumes by bulk comparison (ie pouring or weighing) is more accurate than from its linear measures. Dry capacities (grain, fruit and so on), dropped out once scales became cheap enough to enter the market place, around the 1870's or so.
I have a whole range of physics where the volume of a cube is six times the cube of the side. You just don't know that there is more than one "multiply" hanging around [hint: think of dot vs cross products]. The definition of the square and cubic metre are in fact, semi-base units. This is because the multiplication is not unique.
You DONT need it to be a prefix for it to be a fraction. Please understand!!!!
And, while you're at it, so is inch=ounce=1/12, scruple=1/288, minim, minute=1/60, second=1/3600, third=1/216000, drachm=1/96, calculus=1/6912, nail=clove=1/16, firkin=quart=quarter=1/4. They're all factions.
Isn't this a dead give-away. System = collection of units used together: International = hodgepodge designed to clip the wings of foreign aspirations. Enough said
Actually, you would more easily understand the intensity of a kilometre-candle, (ie a candle at a kilometre), rather than a metre-microcandle, (ie a millionth of a candle at a metre), which is what a microlux is all about. Also, an acrefoot is an easier volume to grasp than a Megalitre, although they're the same size. People convert sheets of paper into stacks miles high because thousands and millions can not be grasped.
7 base units
CGS had only three, and seemed to work OK with that. I've used systems with one base unit. All this means is how many equations you plan to leave out of the derived theory.
They only have seven, because the the system is a botch-up that they HAD to have 7. The mole was only invented as a base because SI did not want to use the coherent kilomole. The base unit "Ampere" depends on the size of the metre and kilogram, but the "Henry per metre" is free of such dependancies. Yet the "Ampere is afforded the status of "base unit". The size of the candela depends on the square metre, but the lux does not.
Sad about the mass unit having a derived name ...
you try telling me what 27 miles is in feet
Don't have to. Because I don't do that sort of conversion at all. Really.
be able to have some idea of exactly what each derived unit means
Some is the operative word here. Rationalisation throws a spanner in the works. 1 C translates into 12.566 C, if flux is being refered to.
Really, it is perfectly logical, and a heck of a lot simpler to learn than the old Imperial or Imperial-derived systems, where there were about 3 times as many different base units.
The imperial system has three base units; yard, pound and gallon. All the rest are supplemental. Somehow, three by seven is three. Good one.
Also, if you are sticking to SI notation to the letter, it is plain from the name of the derived unit exactly how it is derived from the base units.
I did way better with no units, in a google system. In essence, 1 s = 1e100, 1 m = 1e1100, 1 kg = 1e73300, 1 A = 1e32100. Decimal prefixes are just added in: 1 cm = 1e1098. Do unit and exponent calculations all in the same column. The units are far enough apart that you can do the unit sums and exponents with a calculator, and you don't have to remember individual dimensions.
yes, partly because scientists want to be able to understand each other
The pre-metric system used by scientists was Paris feet. Not having a precise widely used measurement system does not hinder much of science.
Why measure volumes in litres. Doesn't the cubic metre cope with this??? No. Volumes are derived from the linear measures, and are very hard to reproduce. Capacity is done by bulk comparison, and is very easy to use: ergo, litres, gallons, bushels.
Also, if you are sticking to SI notation to the letter, it is plain from the name of the derived unit exactly how it is derived from the base units
And from this, we can see immediately how "Weber" is derived from "Metre", "kilogram", "second", and "ampere". Get real.
- HPFS and NTFS are both partition type 07
- NT and OS/2 both write "EA DATA. SF" files in the root directory of FAT partitions on floppies.
- MS reccomends deleting the OS/2 subsystem to make the system secure, but not the DOS system. This would only be meaningful if OS/2 bypasses the file system.
- The WinNT 3.x boot sector and the OS/2 1.3 boot sector are IDENTICAL, including the OS/2 messages.
- Technet has no articles on how to add VMS commands to NT. They do describe how to add OS/2 commands, how to get OS/2 rexx &c to run under NT. These work under Win2K as well. I have run OS/2 commands under NT.
- The original working name for Windows NT was OS/2 NT.
- Windows NT help, the resource kit &c all speak of a product MS OS/2. There really was a product of this name, it was absorbed into Windows NT, and there were plugins that support the OS/2 1.x PM programs.
- The size of the "OS/2" subsystem is mysteriously small, compared even to the DOS one, but this is easily accounted for, if you assume it passes many calls down to the kernel: that is, the kernel is based on OS/2.
On the other hand, there is relatively little going for the arguement that it is based on VMS, apart from some wishful thinking, or because OS/2 might also be so based.I mean, the NAME might be, but then one can make a program "user friendly" by so stamping it.
An imperial nautical mile is 6080 ft, a metric nautical mile is 1852 metres. The original metric system was intended to be a circle divided into 400 degrees of 100 minutes. In this version, the kilometre would be the replacement for the nautical mile. But the angle system never took off.
So hour is not a metric measure, so why don't you just say 82.3 m/s and be done with it. Or are you going to cling to your illogical hours? For us common folk, 160 knots says it all.
Force of engines are measured in a common unit, which happens to be the kilonewton. Just like clothing is measured in centimetres, not metres or millimetres. Hint: people compare numbers on the expectation that a standard unit will be used where convenient.
Spelling came before spelling rules. Truely is not incorrect, it is just not the "correct" spelling. But it has only one meaning, and you truly parsed it, sister.
I suppose you are an MSCE, who is lockstepped into believing what Redmond tells you. If you don't see what's going on, how else will you see what's coming. I saw all this coming in OS/2 five or six years ago. Like I said, OS/2 is the future now, then as now.
Proof: IBM supports OS/2 to paying customers and ignores the home user. Isn't that where MS is heading.... Windows NT is just a downgraded version of OS/2 v 1.3.
celcius, freezing at 0, boiling at 100
Nothing special about these temperature points. The only one that matters is absolute zero = 0. I mean, there are 180 degrees fahrenheit because of historical accident, but at least Fahrenheit adjusted his scale so that fractions would not occur in normal use. The original Roemer units were four times the size. (ie Fahr / 4 both size and scale).
Reameur scale is at least logical in that its degrees represent the increase in volume as 1000 units of alcohol are heated. It ranges from 0 to 80.
Without further comment, the Celcius temperature had freezing at 100, and boiling at 0. The current scale was called Centigrade, but Celcuis was coopted when everyone forgot about the mark I fiasco.
AngleYes, the wonderful simplicity of the metric system, which was intended to replace all measures, did supprisingly poor on angle and time. Despite the so-called decimal advantage, and that the kilometre was intended to be a centisimal minute at the surface of the earth, and so replace nautical mile, neither the decimal division of the quadrant, or day took off. When you calculate the speeds in decimal days, you will start to see the silliness of unrestrained decimals:
1 km/h = 2.4 km/H = 0.24 m/S, and
1 mph = 4 km/H = 0.4 m/S.
Speed limit in usa = 55 mph = 220 km/H.
(1d = 10 H = 1000 M = 10000 S.
Distance. A furlong is 660 feet, as anyone can see. A mile is clearly 5280 feet, as it should.
Imperial ounces don't exist. They're avoirdepoise, troy, or fluid ounces. The context defines the missing adjective. Just as it does with cubic, square and linear measure.
And while you're at it, I notice that you are supprisingly silent on mill, a length, angle and volume, or K, a number, temperature, distance, mass, speed. The truth is, that relying too heavily on a matrix naming does lead to lots of confusion. We won't even go into the prefixes like deci vs deka.
10 mm to the cm
100 cm to the meter
1000 meters to the kilometer
1000 ml to the liter
It is of course interesting here, that apart from preaching how the metric system uses prefixes and so forth, how the "centilitre" is noticably absent. Even more so the nightmare of deci- vs deka, hecto, or Myria-. Oh well. There goes consistancy.
Both systems suffer from the Roman weight-fraction legacy. An uncia was a 12th measure, this gives the foot of 12 inches, and the troy lb of 12 ounces, and an hour of 12 ounces. Mind you, any metric unit divides into 1000 mills. Depending on context, the builder's mill is the mm, where the chemist's mil is a ml. And we won't even worry about "gammas", a mass and magnetic field, and "lambdas" a volume, and "micros" a mass, not to be confused with "microns", a length, or "ohm", a capacity and resistance unit, or "farad" (a capacatance) vs "faraday" (any of a number of electrical charge units).
Metric is still bound by the same sorts of mentality that drives the imperial system. One talks of millions of kilometres, not *gigametres, or "tonnes", not "Megagrams". So much for "logic". Mind you, the names are wildly long that people look for shorter names.
And we won't even worry too much about a large number of special symbols that you need to express its units (eg raised 2, 3, greek Omega, mu). Like, you can't write sq m, you have to put m^2. Where I can write ft or Ft or FT, mm, Mm and MM can be milli or mega- metres.
What's even more impressing is that the prefixes are both patchy, and overload letters, for example, m and M differ by nine orders of magnitude (milli, and mega), and somewhere we got to squease a third m for micro into this lot. Luckily, we can steal the greek mu for this end.
The whole prefix multiple system has been coopted into computing, where one can use K as 1000 or 1024, depending on what your needs are. Megs, Gigs and so on are simply K*K, K*K*K &c. So a 1.44 MB floppy is actually 1.44 * 1000 * 1024. Hmmm.
Metric is MUCH simpler than imperial.
I seriously doubt this, too. The numbers that metric are easier to convert between one and another unit, but I can not seem to recall doing conversions from capacity to volume units all that often, that rough rules could not handle. But to achieve this simplicity, much had to be sacraficed.
160 knots = 160.1023 knots (metric)
6200 ft = 1889.76 m.
400 lb = 1.779 kN.
Areal and nautical speeds are measured in knots, not miles per hour, or km/h or cms. Force of engines is measured in kilonewtons, not newtons.
But what would you convert the units into? Metric, or regular.
The whole idea of metric is that we should put all of our eggs in the one basket, so that people with certian brain defects would not be able to understand it. I found little logical in it to understand what people see so wonderful in it, and I have studied it for thirty years now.
From Microspeak Universal Translator at www.OS2HQ.com
Dead
Microspeak: disappeared; no longer in use.
Real Meaning: a product that does not have monopoly market share.
Usage: "It's only a matter of time before Netscape Navigator is *dead*."
Agenda: To make everyone think that as soon as a Microsoft product is leveraged into a high market share, all the alternatives instantly vaporize.
IBM pull more profit from OS/2 then RedHat makes revenue. It is better supported, and was the original inspiration that made Linux possible. I mean, TeamOS2 was the first grass-roots movement that showed that people could move an OS by themselves.
Sure, Linux is based on bits and peices from free UNIX stuff, but there's a lot of OS/2 and TeamOS2 mentality in it.
OS/2 is the future now. If OS/2 dies now, maybe the whole industry dies in five year's time.
And, by the way, it's a pretty narrow-minded person who can only spell a word one way.
Isn't that how it was written in the first place anyway?
Or three monkeys, two hours. Might have been a rat-dance or a whirlwind, actually. That's more coherent.
Scientists have proposed models that are as probable as "whirlwinds going through junkyards, and assembling a Boeing 747". Maybe MS Office is that sort of event.
That MS has overstepped the steps necessary to protect the unauthorised reproduction of its licenced IP, and the misuse of its trademarks, should be regarded as a threat to the freedom of speech.
Next, they will be saying you can't use their compiler to compile a competing wordprocessor, or any product that competes, replaces or interferes with their extant or potential products. Well.
If MS is inserting into its licenses, conditions of approved content, then they may well be stepping on the jurisdiction of the judge.
There is a certian right to protect the IP rights of a work, which is limited to the use of the work and derived copies. This means that MS can restrict the production and distribution of copies of their work.
There is also the certian right of association of "good name". This means, that if I write on some subject, then I can have you disassociate your work against mine. This was done, for example with Karl Marx and the "survival of the fittest". In the present context, it means the use of MS logos on sites that disparage MS.
But one can not prevent one from using a companies works, legally acquired, to fight against a company, as long as the product is not identified.
The licence as provided is not aimed at the protection of abuse of the intellectual property it covers, but to cover other IP not implied in the license. That is, the licence implies that you should protect IP that you are not being given special access to. It might be interesting to test this role of restraint in court, especially since the annual license thing has been deemed rental in Germany, with the implied restriction of owner (ie MS) fixes.
The other thing is that judges might not take kindly to other people dishing out punishment for crimes that they decide punishment for. For example, if I were to create a hate site, and such a site were legal, than MS could still punish me. If the judge decides it were illegal, than the judge punishes me, and this is all I should pay, not an additional punishment from MS.
What the EULA also grants, by undefined terms "hate, porn", is that they can control content. And for this control of content, they might also be leaving themselves open to the legal content of sites [... by acting as an editor, you become responsible for content ...]
But what I have found, especially with the MSCE stuff, is that they look only at the MS solutions, and never at the competition. So you get this legacy certificate in legacy software. MS is in the process of cancelling their NT4 certs, and getting modern drivers for NT4 is hard to do. The point is, if you want third party stuff, support it. It's the same all the way around.
With third party certification, at least they teach you practical things, although the A+ software course I was on was a five day MS ad.
But it took me a grand total of 12 minutes to pass the exams. The fun thing was that in the the servey (which uses the exam question), selecting "no further course" is a wrong answer. Well...
Democracy flourishes because people choose to disagree. That you and I continue to hold our own divers views, and not come to blows over it is what democracy is all about. That we hold our views strongly means that we care for our views, however different, and that's important, too.
Yes, it has been nice debating with you, and I hope you find something that will keep you in money. Loosing one's job is fretting, I have done it many times myself.
So be happy, and hope the sun smiles on you.
An alternative is to look at PDF formats. Adobe Acrobat installs itself as a print driver, and you can then lay the document out as a single PDF, with all the necessary cross platform support, especially if you stick to version 3 output.
TeX is a lot of hard work, from what I recall, but the results are spectular. It's sort of like Word => Word Perfect for DOS => TeX. [Increasing power and decreasing friendlyness].
You would be better going for LaTeX. This is a wrapper around TeX, but more intended for authors, rather than fiddly page layout.
Spell checking, editing and other luxuries are done externally. So you have to hunt around. I found that the CTAN archives are good to start at, or a 4CD-ROM TeX cd, which has all the required goodies on it at a fraction of the download costs.
Anyway, Best of Luck with your endeavours, and it has been nice talking to you. I even learnt things :)
Keep an alternate version of normal.dot, and periodically back up current documents. It's not the macro viruses that do the damage (these come from using infected documents in word). The real killer is the printer tables stored in the document. I have had word trash documents.
I've seen word do this if you heavily edit the document. Word 2000 seems to have an autorecovery.
I don't think word processors, despite what the documentation says, are good for book sized material. HTML is abysmal for it. I mean, it chokes on a 2MB file, usually. Word generated HTML and RTF is way overloaded.
It's hard to say what should be used as an alternate to word processors, but I am toying with TeX. It's a right pain to use, but it produces spectactular results. Still, each to his own.
Word processors are best for up to about a chapter sized thing, but longer than that, the risk of eating documents comes too great. It's hard to say which is the best, because I have lost lots of stuff to many of the programs I have used. Working in big documents in Amipro was painful as well. The 16 bit version works under Win95.
Yes, I did notice the karma kid visit us. Must have thought we were interesting ...
Public spectacles are not copyrightable. You can not copyright a fire-works, or yourself walking in a clown suit.
You have the right to record details of events you were involved in as well. For example, you may take copies of e:mail, chats, and postings that you were involved or interested in.
You are entitled to privacy. What this means is that you have some right that someone else will not engage in actions that will bring together disperse episodes of your life. That is, a person engaging in one or more actions that brings together a series of your events, is invading your privacy.
A person who, by noting your actions, assigns you to a list of people noted for having the same actions, is also invading your privacy.
The reason being, is that your inclusion in a list may be a misrepresentation of what you really are. My interest in product X does not mean that I support it, but may just be sussing the class that X belongs to.
People who act to preserve their privacy, do so in a way that prevents search tags being assigned to their events.
It is the processing, not the recording of events, that invades privacy. Please understand this.
The problems that we are dealing with are that it's very easy to copy. What we need to look at is how to deal with the notion that the natural restraint of cost no longer applies to copying and tracking. Something was looked at in the cassette thing, and in the videotaping of shows.
People who make IP works, such as books, music or software, have a legitimate right to be paid for it. The question is how to we pay for these. Under the old days, we paid them a bounty on copying, because the copy was hard to make and easy to control. Hence the notion of copyright.
But if copying is now easy to do, and can be done by anyone with a computer, maybe we need a new controlling token to pay the IP owner. I just don't know: I'm identifying the underlying issue.
And as far as IP goes, there are lots of whinges when software vendors, music publishers and co DO protect their IP, eg
- Universal Records and their "can't play on a PC" albums,
- Microsoft and the "you must authorenticate to us to use this product" thing,
- dongles and other hardware things, [daisychained dongles...]
- keydisks, and keyfiles.
The sad thing is that it hurts the legit buyers, because the pirutes and crackers would have found a loop past all of this.When you buy some software, or a book, or a record, you own the distribution media, and a licence to use the material contained thereon. Even though I don't own "Amipro" or "Imagine" or "Regular Polytopes", I do own a licence to use a copy of it on my machine. Buying any of these do not give me the right to set myself up as a redistributer.
So, technically, you don't own the copyright to the software, you do own the right to use a copy of it, and to hold such backups of the media as allowed in the agreement.
And it is that right that you might transfer under the cover of sale.