I use OOo exclusively when I need a word processor. I rarely need anything else in the "office" department, so Writer pretty much settles me down.
IMO, the main difficulty from "migrating" from one to the other is getting used to all the default behaviors and context menu stylings.
I don't use a word processor much these days. However, I used to use one profusely - back in 1996 - 1999. For the most part I was using Windows, and I started off with Office '95. I liked its default actions. I stuck with it for as long as I could, and moved to '97 around 1999. The change was marginal, but I was still used to the (fairly minimalist) Word95 setup. It let me get work done.
I couldn't stand all the nag effects in W97 (to some deggree) and to even greater degree in MSO2k, and that's when I went to OOo (or close to it). However, there are still some things which bug me about OOo - one of which is the inability to simply have a "word processor" view, and not a "printed page" view without going into the "Online Layout" option which changes the document type. There are other small things, but for the most part I've adapted to OOo for when I need a Word Processor.
I'm sure this doesn't apply to everyone, but I need fairly minimalistic word processor features. I think this does apply to most people, though. All I really need is:
- Spell check - formatting like page margins, line formating, indentation, font selection, and the like - Sub and super scripts - Occasionally a table mid-page or something of that sort.
AFAIK, these features were met as far back as Word on Windows 3.11. I know I've seen older Macs that were from that era and had that facility.
I've got news for you. Without oil, there would be no plastics whatsoever.
Now look around you and tell me if you see anything thta isn't made without oil. Latex paint, everything in your computer, quite possibly some furniture, the chair you're sitting in, the carpet on your floor or the finish on the wood, the containers your detergents are in, every single cleaning product (including your shampoo), many food addives (yes, it's true), and even your "synthetic lubricants".
If that's the real problem, count me in for not caring.
Greenland used to be, well, green and lush. It was a very bountiful place for the Norse when they immigrated there. Unfortunately, then a min-ice age hit around 1000AD, and hit quickly, and changed all that.
I'm fairly certain places like Dublin and other costal localities were not submerged at the time, so I'm not really concerned. Actually, worldwide climate was actually a bit more humid, so we can start counting our blessings: it's likely the Middle East will not have such severe drought problems much longer.
Most of the shit you probably read in high school was written by socialist bores. Did you read 1984 in high shcool, perchance?
Public schools have been actively trying to make history (and literature) uninteresting and boring to students for years by making note of unnoteable characters, obfuscating history behind multiple-choice tests which illustrate nothing, and various other means of insignification.
Yes, absolutely true. Feminists (with the neutered assistance of the metrosexuals and mindless housewives) are wholeheartedly pussifying our culture. Real men are being made to look like sexist pigs, even when they're pure gentlemen at heart. It's disgusting.
Sorry, this is relevant in the context of this person claiming to have been denied the vote, how?
Unless she is over 100 years old or so, she's full of shit. She hasn't been denied a damn thing; in fact, if she's under 30 or so, chances are she's gotten more opportunity than most males due to female-specific scholarships and affirmative action.
This post (and its grandparent) has to be one of the best damn posts I've ever read on slashdot.
It culminates all the knowledge and wisdom that should be taught in business mgmt classes in college, but is not. If only this information were given to business students, and they were forced to memorize it and recite it in a militant fashion, we would have excellent business practices in this country.
So what you're saying is that men would rather be judged for who they are than what they are, and women would rather be judged for what they are than who they are. Sounds to me like you're saying that women are fundamentally shallow.
People of different genders value different things to different levels. There's no denying it (with a straight face): it's a biological imperative. By nature, women acclimate towards things like nurture, multitasking, language skills, and so-called "domestic" duties (as a whole). This is why women (and feminine men) are more often found in roles such as nurse, business assistant, and the like.
Likewise, men are more intrinsically gifted with traits such as determination, logic and reason, strength, and what have you. They are male characteristics, no matter how much the weaker sex (or at least the fringe fanatics within the gender) wants them for themselves.
All we're finding out here is that intelligence is more of an intrinsically male trait. Most of these 'intelligence' tests are simply observation and/or logic tests anyway (at least the ones I've seen) with a healthy helping of language skills, so I'm not really surprised that men came out slightly ahead what with the bubble-headed nature of most American females.
Oh, and most of these tests aren't made by "a person". They're made by a multi-racial, dual-gender board of appointees, for the most part. If there was any skewering involved, it's because the men were able to exert more control over the process.
If you take everything involved here to its logical conclusion, it's obvious what we humans need to do to fix this problem.
We humans aren't made for cities; that's the simple fact of the matter. People don't tend to like cities much: the air is dirty and usually hot, there is little greenery, and there are many people. THe landscape isn't healing to the soul, and people like the wilderness. We're obviously not controlling our populations to any degree (with birth control, disease, war, or self restraint), let alone our resource consumption. Per capita, humans consume much, much more natural resources in their lifetime than ever before.
Simply: we need to fight more with each other. We need more wars.
Wars (of the modern type) clean out cities of old buildings (fairly indescriminately, but still they do). They get rid of the excess of people through all the common methods, and are very efficient at it.
Yeah, that's actually quite a bit of megafauna here in the US.
We've got mountain lions/cougars, bobcats (which can get up to 100lb, and are direct descendants of the sabertooth cat), grey wolves, moose, elk, wild boars, some of the whitetail deer in parts of the country (where they grow larger, like in South Dakota), black brown and grizzly bear, and hell, even the "coyotes" in the Northeast part of the country.
I'm sure we have others that I'm not immediately recalling, too.
* Actually, the coyotes in the NE US aren't coyotes at all anymore. They're a hybrid between coyotes and timber wolves, as most of them are well over 100lb now (up to around 150lb,and have more wolf-like features) instead of around 60lb like coyotes. They demonstrate some behaviors of both timber wolves and coyotes.
The coyotes that were in the NE US 150 years ago or so were the red coyotes we now only see in the southern US.
Imagine the incentive to hunt safari animals here in the United States. It would probably be cheaper for the 'tourist' hunter to hunt here to to travel and various associated expenses. It would also be a lot safer for the hunter (in terms of natives/criminals, poisonous animals, and stress).
Can't afford the half a million dollars it takes to hunt safari animals in Africa, and the years of planning associated with it? Great, pay us $100,000 and you can get one elephant, or $300,000 for a predator.
That sounds to me like what they're probably trying to do, IMO.
People that have studied to any significant degree people's responses during life-threatening situations know that visual and auditory perception is shot to hell: you get tunnel vision and you often "black out".
Hell, anyone that's had sex knows that your situational awareness goes to hell outside the smalle confine of the act itself.
You don't need to have an "hourly, monthly, or annual" assessment of downtime caused by your OS to determine TCO.
It's pretty damn easy to look at the people in your IT department(s) and simply count the number of people (and the number of hours) they spend simply fixing and dealing with software issues as their main role. For every hour they spend, figure 10 hours lost by the people that have to use those machines (if it's desktop support) and 100 hours or so for server administrators.
By distributing AOL style, the masses will install it - and invariably fuck it up.
By setting the "find it online, crack/whatever it, install it using some convoluted method" benchmark, they're making sure only competent (or reasonably so) people can run OS X at first, and thus people won't be blaming Apple for their borked computer and lost data (most likely, at least).
They'll just attach a lower, 'consumer' price later on, or offer incentives.
I hope to God that Apple doesn't go the winmodem/winfax/winprinter bullshit route, though. That would really screw them in the long run.
While it's a poorly thrown together website, it has a lot of information: http://www.savetheguns.com/ is a good starting point for general firearm debate.
Also, you can go to the CDC website and find statistical information on gun violence; I think they also have facility for trending information.
I'm a member of a forum at http://www.kimdutoit.com./ You might be able to ask specific questions there (on the forums - don't bother Kim with stuff directly), and surely someone knows the specific information's reference point. (These guys are incredibly knowledgeable about many different things, not just law, firearms, and things related.:P)
Finally, there's always google, as I'm sure I found the information by following a link from there.
You just keep thinking that, chump. If you and your kind keep things up the way you have been, in a couple months or years we'll be seeing their armies marching on our country. You'll run out in the street to welcome the Islamic liberators of the oppressed people of the Republic of America, and... likely get shot in the face.
(Yes, I'm over exagerating. Red-state boys in arms will obviously prevent such a thing.)
Slashdot Mirror
I use OOo exclusively when I need a word processor. I rarely need anything else in the "office" department, so Writer pretty much settles me down.
IMO, the main difficulty from "migrating" from one to the other is getting used to all the default behaviors and context menu stylings.
I don't use a word processor much these days. However, I used to use one profusely - back in 1996 - 1999. For the most part I was using Windows, and I started off with Office '95. I liked its default actions. I stuck with it for as long as I could, and moved to '97 around 1999. The change was marginal, but I was still used to the (fairly minimalist) Word95 setup. It let me get work done.
I couldn't stand all the nag effects in W97 (to some deggree) and to even greater degree in MSO2k, and that's when I went to OOo (or close to it). However, there are still some things which bug me about OOo - one of which is the inability to simply have a "word processor" view, and not a "printed page" view without going into the "Online Layout" option which changes the document type. There are other small things, but for the most part I've adapted to OOo for when I need a Word Processor.
I'm sure this doesn't apply to everyone, but I need fairly minimalistic word processor features. I think this does apply to most people, though. All I really need is:
- Spell check
- formatting like page margins, line formating, indentation, font selection, and the like
- Sub and super scripts
- Occasionally a table mid-page or something of that sort.
AFAIK, these features were met as far back as Word on Windows 3.11. I know I've seen older Macs that were from that era and had that facility.
I've got news for you. Without oil, there would be no plastics whatsoever.
Now look around you and tell me if you see anything thta isn't made without oil. Latex paint, everything in your computer, quite possibly some furniture, the chair you're sitting in, the carpet on your floor or the finish on the wood, the containers your detergents are in, every single cleaning product (including your shampoo), many food addives (yes, it's true), and even your "synthetic lubricants".
If that's the real problem, count me in for not caring.
Greenland used to be, well, green and lush. It was a very bountiful place for the Norse when they immigrated there. Unfortunately, then a min-ice age hit around 1000AD, and hit quickly, and changed all that.
I'm fairly certain places like Dublin and other costal localities were not submerged at the time, so I'm not really concerned. Actually, worldwide climate was actually a bit more humid, so we can start counting our blessings: it's likely the Middle East will not have such severe drought problems much longer.
Invest in coffins, gravestones, and burrial plots.
Excellent. More beachfront housing will soon be available!
Most of the shit you probably read in high school was written by socialist bores. Did you read 1984 in high shcool, perchance?
Public schools have been actively trying to make history (and literature) uninteresting and boring to students for years by making note of unnoteable characters, obfuscating history behind multiple-choice tests which illustrate nothing, and various other means of insignification.
Why did you bother making this post? This is in the original topic, fleecebrain.
No shit?
Yes, absolutely true. Feminists (with the neutered assistance of the metrosexuals and mindless housewives) are wholeheartedly pussifying our culture. Real men are being made to look like sexist pigs, even when they're pure gentlemen at heart. It's disgusting.
Sorry, this is relevant in the context of this person claiming to have been denied the vote, how?
Unless she is over 100 years old or so, she's full of shit. She hasn't been denied a damn thing; in fact, if she's under 30 or so, chances are she's gotten more opportunity than most males due to female-specific scholarships and affirmative action.
Prior to the 1950's, early motor skill development was seen as a sign of intelligence.
What's chanced since then?
Women are now the majority in the field of psychology. Surprise, surprise. Women value their own traits over those of men? Amazing.
This post (and its grandparent) has to be one of the best damn posts I've ever read on slashdot.
It culminates all the knowledge and wisdom that should be taught in business mgmt classes in college, but is not. If only this information were given to business students, and they were forced to memorize it and recite it in a militant fashion, we would have excellent business practices in this country.
But they don't and we don't.
You hit the nail on the head without even realizing it. You are an atypical female.
It's not you and your type guys have problems with. It's the bitchy, stupid majority.
So what you're saying is that men would rather be judged for who they are than what they are, and women would rather be judged for what they are than who they are. Sounds to me like you're saying that women are fundamentally shallow.
Wrong.
People of different genders value different things to different levels. There's no denying it (with a straight face): it's a biological imperative. By nature, women acclimate towards things like nurture, multitasking, language skills, and so-called "domestic" duties (as a whole). This is why women (and feminine men) are more often found in roles such as nurse, business assistant, and the like.
Likewise, men are more intrinsically gifted with traits such as determination, logic and reason, strength, and what have you. They are male characteristics, no matter how much the weaker sex (or at least the fringe fanatics within the gender) wants them for themselves.
All we're finding out here is that intelligence is more of an intrinsically male trait. Most of these 'intelligence' tests are simply observation and/or logic tests anyway (at least the ones I've seen) with a healthy helping of language skills, so I'm not really surprised that men came out slightly ahead what with the bubble-headed nature of most American females.
Oh, and most of these tests aren't made by "a person". They're made by a multi-racial, dual-gender board of appointees, for the most part. If there was any skewering involved, it's because the men were able to exert more control over the process.
In addition to "literature", apparently you're not aware of what "history" is, either.
An entertaining read does not literature make.
Yes, that's why "dumb blonde" invariably applies to men in common conversation in both genders. *groan*
In Japan, where most family houses/appartments might be the size of small American apartment (and likely quite a bit smaller)? Yes.
If you take everything involved here to its logical conclusion, it's obvious what we humans need to do to fix this problem.
We humans aren't made for cities; that's the simple fact of the matter. People don't tend to like cities much: the air is dirty and usually hot, there is little greenery, and there are many people. THe landscape isn't healing to the soul, and people like the wilderness. We're obviously not controlling our populations to any degree (with birth control, disease, war, or self restraint), let alone our resource consumption. Per capita, humans consume much, much more natural resources in their lifetime than ever before.
Simply: we need to fight more with each other. We need more wars.
Wars (of the modern type) clean out cities of old buildings (fairly indescriminately, but still they do). They get rid of the excess of people through all the common methods, and are very efficient at it.
Yeah, that's actually quite a bit of megafauna here in the US.
We've got mountain lions/cougars, bobcats (which can get up to 100lb, and are direct descendants of the sabertooth cat), grey wolves, moose, elk, wild boars, some of the whitetail deer in parts of the country (where they grow larger, like in South Dakota), black brown and grizzly bear, and hell, even the "coyotes" in the Northeast part of the country.
I'm sure we have others that I'm not immediately recalling, too.
* Actually, the coyotes in the NE US aren't coyotes at all anymore. They're a hybrid between coyotes and timber wolves, as most of them are well over 100lb now (up to around 150lb,and have more wolf-like features) instead of around 60lb like coyotes. They demonstrate some behaviors of both timber wolves and coyotes.
The coyotes that were in the NE US 150 years ago or so were the red coyotes we now only see in the southern US.
Nonsense. It's plenty economical.
One word: hunters.
Imagine the incentive to hunt safari animals here in the United States. It would probably be cheaper for the 'tourist' hunter to hunt here to to travel and various associated expenses. It would also be a lot safer for the hunter (in terms of natives/criminals, poisonous animals, and stress).
Can't afford the half a million dollars it takes to hunt safari animals in Africa, and the years of planning associated with it? Great, pay us $100,000 and you can get one elephant, or $300,000 for a predator.
That sounds to me like what they're probably trying to do, IMO.
People that have studied to any significant degree people's responses during life-threatening situations know that visual and auditory perception is shot to hell: you get tunnel vision and you often "black out".
Hell, anyone that's had sex knows that your situational awareness goes to hell outside the smalle confine of the act itself.
You don't need to have an "hourly, monthly, or annual" assessment of downtime caused by your OS to determine TCO.
It's pretty damn easy to look at the people in your IT department(s) and simply count the number of people (and the number of hours) they spend simply fixing and dealing with software issues as their main role. For every hour they spend, figure 10 hours lost by the people that have to use those machines (if it's desktop support) and 100 hours or so for server administrators.
The resulting number will be conservative.
No, bad idea.
By distributing AOL style, the masses will install it - and invariably fuck it up.
By setting the "find it online, crack/whatever it, install it using some convoluted method" benchmark, they're making sure only competent (or reasonably so) people can run OS X at first, and thus people won't be blaming Apple for their borked computer and lost data (most likely, at least).
They'll just attach a lower, 'consumer' price later on, or offer incentives.
I hope to God that Apple doesn't go the winmodem/winfax/winprinter bullshit route, though. That would really screw them in the long run.
While it's a poorly thrown together website, it has a lot of information: http://www.savetheguns.com/ is a good starting point for general firearm debate.
:P)
Also, you can go to the CDC website and find statistical information on gun violence; I think they also have facility for trending information.
I'm a member of a forum at http://www.kimdutoit.com./ You might be able to ask specific questions there (on the forums - don't bother Kim with stuff directly), and surely someone knows the specific information's reference point. (These guys are incredibly knowledgeable about many different things, not just law, firearms, and things related.
Finally, there's always google, as I'm sure I found the information by following a link from there.
Sorry if it took me a long time to reply.
You just keep thinking that, chump. If you and your kind keep things up the way you have been, in a couple months or years we'll be seeing their armies marching on our country. You'll run out in the street to welcome the Islamic liberators of the oppressed people of the Republic of America, and... likely get shot in the face.
(Yes, I'm over exagerating. Red-state boys in arms will obviously prevent such a thing.)