You aren't just using a word processor, though. FrameMaker is good for authoring, sure, but also for publishing. It does full page layout, but it presents it in a way that it is easy for you to edit your styles. If software like Word had used a similar approach to FrameMaker, we wouldn't be having this discussion.:)
My point about layout in a word processor is that it doesn't do that. Word is an excellent example of why the current word processor concept doesn't work for page layout. Word processors are great for writing things down. When you want to actually publish to the web, or to paper, and have it look right and consistent, now you have to import it to a layout system. Perhaps what you did in Word is good enough, so you publish to PDF so that it looks proper on other machines, printers, etc. It won't change when you email it to someone with another version of the software.
So, I'm not saying that users shouldn't be allowed to change layout, just that it works better when you separate layout from authoring. If all you needed to do was, say, pick your style, and then say what thing is a heading, what thing is a paragraph, etc, then you get more done. This is because you don't worry about the layout/style every time you write something. So you set your style/layout up, and just keep reusing them.
Actually, it is my job to tell people how they should and shouldn't use their computers. That's part of what being IT management is. You get a rought idea of what needs to be done. As a result, you form a good way of doing it, and then implement that solution. Then you train the users on how that solution works; that way they know why they do what they do, and are competent.
LaTeX is not all that hard to use. Making styles isn't that easy, but that's not something you need to do, or at least not something to do often. As part of an IT infrastructure, you could have styles already created and distributed with the software installs. Many of the default styles are fine straight away.
As a couple other people already said, it is clearly the wrong way to do it as you go. You end up with a poorly thought out mess. Occasionally it looks decent. If you use a system designed for publishing things, then you don't *need* to worry about layout as you type, or after you type. You already decided on a style and never need to mess with it again.
You seem to advocate not learning anything about the how or why of anything you do. If people *learned* how to use a computer, none of this is an issue. If people understood that they have to actually do *work* to make things happen, there would be far fewer problems.
BTW - I'm a very visual person myself. I can understand the allure of a visual layout system. I happen to believe that using the bad method when there is a better method *is* stupid. I see that Word is a bad way to do it, and so I learn to do it another way. You are talking about a refusal to change your way simply because it's your way.
If I did everything the quick and easy way, I would be doing a pretty bad job at most everything I attempted. If I only considered options that I already understood, I would cut out most other options. I'm talking about being flexible and willing to consider that another way might be better.
Actually: no and no. I'm quite far away from either of your suggestions.
I don't spend time making things look pretty. I set up a template and everything that I write comes out pretty. I can do that because I decided how I wanted things to look, and set up styles in LyX to do them for me.
You obviously had no idea what tool to choose for the job, as you chose a word processor to do page layout. Yes, most people do their resume in Word, but that doesn't make it correct.
As for LaTeX, no I don't think they could handle writing out in the layout grammer. I think they could use a tool like LyX just fine, though. Just like anything, they would need retraining to get rid of the bad habits from Word, and then they'll be okay. Well, after a while they would be okay.
Also, many publishers also get quite a few files as PDFs. That way they are actually reproduced the way that you thought they were going to be when you finished writing. If you send a Word document, the asinine layout engine in there might decide to reflow the document on you, and make it look completely different.
You touched upon the biggest problem in running computer systems. The users are not trained in anything, and many of them refuse to get any better. That is an unacceptable way to do things, and I work my ass off to change it. The end result is a much more optimized and efficient operation, as people know what they are doing when I'm done.
I mean that Publisher actually was targetted at doing page design. You can place things arbitrarily rather than doing screwed up table formats and space padding. Word is a document editor, not a page layout system. People seem to think that it is, but it does that absolutely horribly... makes Publisher look like a real layout system.
I definitely don't mean that Publisher is any good. Pretty much every other page layout system out there is better.
No, there are two versions of Windows right now that are at all relevant. You can buy either XP Home or XP Pro. Media Center isn't available in stores, and Windows Server isn't the desktop version.
Going from Home or Pro (Office) to Home 1, Home 2, Home 3, Home 4, Office 1, Office 2, Office 3. That would be Starter, Home Basic, Home Pro, Ultimate, Pro, Small Business, Enterprise.
Today, you can't get 1, numbers 2 and 3 are called Home, and 4-7 are called Pro.
The next Windows Server *will not* be this software. They'll probably have another 10 versions for that, since they already have 5 of them (Standard, Enterprise, Datacenter, Web, and Small Business). We can probably expect Windows Server: Starter, Standard, Enterprise, Datacenter, High Security, Cluster, Web, Messaging, Media, and Ultimate. Of course, Starter will only let you run one server app, and only two people can connect to it simultaneously.
The difference is that you don't have 7 variants the desktop version of a distro. For most Linux distros out there, you buy it, and that's all. Then when you install it, you can pick a role for the machine.
Even in distros that do have more than one version, it is rather clear what's going on. You can buy the workstation version, or one of the server versions.
With this, now you have seven desktop variants of the same exact software. People won't know what the differences are, so they won't know which to choose. They'll buy the cheapest, the most expensive, or the default. The cheapest is outright broken, the most expensive (Ultimate) does what Windows Pro can do now. The default will probably end up being Home Premium, or whatever that was, which will do what Home does now.
End result, you'll have a lot of people pirating the "1337 Ultimate r0x0r" edition because they ended up screwing up and getting the wrong one.
Nope.:) I meant it the way that I wrote it. Whenever I have a chance, I encourage people to look at LaTeX.
The idea of the one you propose is OK, but the "you" should be "they". People is plural, so you need to use a plural pronoun. That would imply that when someone has available time, it would be good to look into LaTeX. I try to imply that people should look at it right away, because the way that they are doing it isn't the best way. That is more forceful, but doesn't say that they are outright wrong.
MS does this with every Office release. Just like Apple did with Quicktime and iTunes. All three are bad executions. Inherit from the OS, and people can use the app more effectively, since you have consistent look and feel.
Office always look different than everything else you run. That's the major problem with "skinnable" apps, too. If you don't theme through the UI toolkit, then you aren't consistent. Once you aren't consistent, the computer gets much more difficult to learn and use.
I hate that Firefox, my IM program, Thunderbird, Office, Quicktime, Winamp, Real Player, and various parts of Windows, all look different from one another. Since I'm forced to use application specific themes, I spend time finding the ones that make them all look exactly alike. Then when the base system UI changes, I have to go and do that all over again.
Office is obnoxious, since there are a million poorly laid out options, things are labeled well, and the help system is terrible. Only *some* of the changes ever get brought into the next release of Windows, too. Office XP brought the terrible idea that was "personalized menues", which is the big change that was brought into XP. The UI doesn't look like Luna, nor should it. That should be inherited from the base system. Office, however, codes it in, and so it doesn't look like Windows 2000, *or* like Windows XP.
Re:Hole With No Bottom
on
Office 12 Exposed
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Publisher is WYSIWYG, but *definitely* not Word. Not only can you not necessarily print the document with the same formatting on another printer, but Word will do reflows based on what printer driver you have, what you selected, version differences between computers, and all sorts of other things.
WYSIWYG is a terrible way to do documents anyway. You shouldn't be spending time making it look right, you should spend it writing the silly thing. I encourage people to look into things like LaTeX whenever I have the chance. It just works so much better for anything more than a quick note or memo. You get consistent and proper layout every time on better software than Word.
Word processor requirements haven't really changed since WordStar. All most people need to do is write something up quickly, and print it. If you're doing layout in a word processor, you've already screwed up. That is not what they are good at, and that's why publishers use things like PDF, TeX, etc.
I think the point here is that if your application runs Java, it is at least, in part, a Java application. This is a C++/Java hybrid, and so is both a Java app and a C++ app.
As a quick hack, this was an acceptable way to do it. As a long term solution, this is not okay. Having an application split between numerous languages increases memory requirements, slows the app down, and makes it harder to maintain.
I don't agree with the decision to code parts of the OO.o suite in Java, and this is no different. Pick a language and stick with it, and the app will work better. People complain about load times for this suite as it is... forcing the additional overhead required to load the JVM is not making it any better.
These sorts of arguments pop up all the time when Java comes up. For some reason, people refuse to understand that if you have another layer of abstraction, you have a slower and larger application. It might not be appreciable, but it exists. In the case of Java, your code executes fairly close to native speeds once the bytecode is loaded and processed. Sometimes the code can be better than your average native code because of the run-time optimization the JVM can do. You still have the additional 20MB+ of RAM use, and the several second load-time from the JVM.
Saugus isn't the only municipality in MA to be in the process of converting away from MS Office to open formats. The delay of the OO.o 2.0 release is what's holding back this from becoming more common. Once that release is out in the wild, expect to hear about a few more towns converting.
I'm converting the town I work for to systems that aren't plagued by vendor lock-in. We're not just moving to open document formats, but trying to avoid any form of vendor lock-in at all! We want to be able to jump to any platform we desire. That way we don't worry about what the x86 market does, whether or not Linux stays stable in the future, or if MS goes under.
Also, there is home-turf support for OpenDocument; OASIS is right up in Billerica.
You aren't actually disagreeing with me, and I'm not really disagreeing with you. I mean that you should be able to do what you want with your property. The limit comes when your action effect other people and their property, when your action would constitute the use of force.
I think you *should* be able to set rules on your property. If you want a rule that says "talk in rhyme or leave", that's fine. You just can't *force* someone to talk in rhyme, but you can make them leave. I don't agree with how the government forces rules on private property in the way that they do now. You should be able to hire whomever you want, having smoking if you want, etc.
Sure, I wish that people could live in a political anarchy, because that is ultimate freedom. I also recognise that people are likely not capable of doing that.
The limits that I'm talking about are over the use of force. You can't let individuals use force over others because it limits the freedom of those people.
Those civil liberties must be protected at all times. The existence of them is why you can't have authority to use force, even on your own property. If someone steals from you, you can't just go onto their property and take it back. The government provides that function.
As I was saying civil liberties are inherent rights that all people have involving themselves. Men, women, white, black, and so on - they are all the same and need to be guaranteed equal treatment by the government. All people need to have the right to live, speak, etc. They are only about yourself. The government doesn't grant those rights, but it must ensure that they are protected.
I'm not saying that *you* have to give equal treatment, because you aren't the government. If you don't want to let white people into your store, then you should be able to say that. You should also be able to have a white person removed from your store, if you want to.
Civil rights tend to be those that are protected by the government, though not granted by it. The are usually the ones that are about your person. Examples could be that all people are equal, or all people have the right to free speech.
Some people do think that we should consider property rights to be inherent. I don't think it would be a bad idea for them to be that way, but I've been definining civil liberties ones that are directly involving your person.
On your land, you should be able to do what you want, so long as your actions aren't forcing someone else to do something against their will. Exceptions to that would be things like defending yourself or your property, and similar. Cases where you need to use force for other circumstances should involve police.
On public land, it's just rules as written in law, in addition to those that are inherent. No laws about what you're allowed to say, wear, etc.
Civil rights come into play when you're talking about that "force". You can have the rules you want, but you can't really enforce them on your own.
I see why you want public education, but I don't like the way it seems you are proposing it. I definitely don't think it should be Federal. If you mean to have local governments do most of it, then you would have my support.
We certainly agree about affirmative action. I've always held that it was just more discrimination. It needs to be abolished. If we're going to do public education, then there can be no limitations or encouragments on who can have it; it needs to be all or none. This is coming from an equal rights stance, so that is in addition to what you said about the economic necessity.
Pollution controls are for something that effects more than just the state the pollution is created. In that regard, it is appropriate at the Federal level. This is one of a small number of things that it is true for. Another example would be the spectrum allocation function that the FCC serves. I think we agree on this one, too!
You're assuming that they need money to do that, though. All they need is a cult of personality. Many of the dictatorial leaders of the past were able to come to power, and exercise that power, without money. If people are willing to follow you, then they will volunteer for you, at least for a while. If you change things into being a war, then you pay no one, and take what supplies you need to keep the war going.
I'll agree with you that in a situation like the current US, your way would function. That isn't always the case, though. I also agree that you don't grant civil rights, you just ensure that they aren't trampled.
People need to be secure in themselves before their property matters. Otherwise, you're only free because some g-man type hasn't decided otherwise. Then, the only property rights that save you are those that ensure you have weapons.
Don't get me wrong, property rights are essential, as well. I just think they need to be the second set of essential rights and liberties; ones you do after you've guaranteed civil liberties.
Remember that we don't need cars. All the US is just like Europe types, and environmentalists that don't actually think, say so. They could've just used public transit to get out, because cars are bad, mmmkay.
Anyway, enough of that.
There are so many things that went wrong about this hurricane. Busses and trains should have been kept running to the last minute, getting people out. Hell, if the companies are that greedy and uncaring about human life, then use some of that disaster money to pay them for the rides, or simply force the infrastructure to keep operation and free of charge. That's happened before for good reason.
Next would be to get FEMA, and all those other idiots, to get out of these people's way. Let people leave, don't imprison them. Allow the donations, volunteers, and corporations to aid. You had Walmart donating trucks and trucks of supplies, and they were barred access by the government. You have people dying because they're forced to stay in the Superdome.
The reason the hurrican devestated the area so much was because the government didn't spend their tax revenue on what it is supposed to be for.
Most of the problems were *caused* by the government. There was ample time to get most of the residents out of there, had the government done what they are supposed to. There would less death and suffering, right now, this very minute, if the government got their collective heads out of their asses.
I'd see it as a sign that people need to actually learn how driving works, instead of just what laws cover it. Most legislation in the area has made things worse, just like most other things they legislate.
We need more accountability, and more enforcement of laws, not more laws. A company is polluting? Fine, revoke their charter. Cars are inefficient, then provide actual *usable* alternatives.
Definitely drop this whole waste of life and money that is the "war on terrorism".
Gun deaths aren't invisible, really. They're just not preventable. If you eliminate guns, now you have new weapons: knives, hammers, etc. However, you eliminate an important way for people to defend themselves and their liberties.
Remember, every time someone uses a gun to kill a bunch of people, the media picks it up and makes millions with it. Think of the school shootings, and that sniper guy in DC. Very few people were killed, and it isn't a wide-spread problem, but it's immediately a nation-wide crisis.
If terrorists were to introduce a biological agent, I think you'd have more of a noticable effect. Everyone would be too scared to go outside, which wouldn't be a problem because there would be complete lockdown of everyone. The country would be quarantined and under martial law.
habeas corpus: n 1: a writ ordering a prisoner to be brought before a judge [syn: writ of habeas corpus] 2: the civil right to obtain a writ of habeas corpus as protection against illegal imprisonment
USC, Clause 2: The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
Habeas Corpus is the only thing that may be suspended in Cases of Invasion or Rebellion. It is not automatically suspended, only *may* be suspended. They aren't really saying they can hold you for any reason, just that they can deny you access to the Court. So if you *are* arrested, you have no way to force them to free you until the Invasion/Rebellion is over.
The effect is the same as what you're saying; I just wanted to clarify that the government isn't actually able to suspend all of your rights, at least not directly.
When people say government, they tend to mean legislature.
You're definitely right that you need a strong government. However, it's all in how that power is divided. If you concentrate it at the highest level, then you will fail. That is what's happening to the US. You have to do it backwards, so that you afford people choice of the laws while maintaining citizenship.
Also, you don't need wealth redistribution if you don't take half of everyone's money in taxes. Kill most of the Federal, and instantly, people have 35% more money. Even if the States implement many of those programs, it will still be much less expensive than the Federal way. And people will be able to move to a State or municipality without whatever idiotic law had been enacted that irritated them.
No, you are completely and totally wrong. Voting is the mechanism to affect change to the system. This doesn't mean a creating a nanny state, but that is one possibility. There are always people that will disagree with any particular thing you try to do. You can't do much about it, but you try to run a system that best represents everyone.
Also, 49% is a bit ridiculous. You assume that there will always be 2% of the vote that will actually matter, because you assume that you will always have about half on each side of an issue.
Civil liberty absolutely *must* come before financial freedom. If you cannot do what you want, then you cannot do what you want with your money. Without civil liberty, the government can just take your money at whim, they can force you to prison for nothing, they can implement massive taxes and you can't do anything about it. Without civil liberty, you have no money, and you have no property.
This is why the US Constitution had tried to have most power at the local level, and decreasing amounts of power as you go up. That way, our Federal level would do the most basic things that were necessary for all states to cooperate on. Those were such things national defense, currency, and trade between states. The States would do a bit more, like provide a good body of law, and large projects, as well as most of the military forces.
That way if you didn't like the laws, you could move to another town, or, at worst, another state.
Yeah, agreed on judicial review. We could have basically the same function without having it codified, but I don't trust people to not argue that it's unconstitutional on the basis that they think everything needs to be enumerated.
You can get the same basic function through court precedent, though. If a higher court consistently throws out cases involving a certain law, and always accepts appeals of that law, then you know that if a lower court rules with it, it will be overturned. You can shortcut this by allowing the higher court to force the law to be removed, and save everybody time.
I would like to see some clauses considered immutable. Division of power and the Bill of Rights would be examples: you could add to them, but not take away. It's a shame that it seems necessary to do it that way... Obviously, public welfare and the commerce clauses need rewording. Better descriptions of what is meant by things like the 1st and 2nd amendments would be in order, too. Mostly a bunch of small changes to prevent the Federal from growing into a borderline fascist oligarchy again.
Actually, I'd love to see that happen. We have so many people on military bases in so many other countries for poor reasons. We fight conflict after conflict that isn't in the defense of our country. It needs to be fixed.
Actually, I do believe the basic job of the Federal hasn't really needed to change over the last 200 years. There was a very good division of power that was set up, and has been largely erased. There are very few new Federal functions that should rightly be forced upon all States. Most things that the Federal does should happen at a lower level of government.
To hell with discretionary budgets. Get rid of most of the Federal entitlement trash programs that should never have been Federal to begin with. Then you suddenly have more than double the available budget to work with, after dropping taxes to compensate for increased State costs. As evidenced by the hurricane, the Federal can't find its ass with both hands. Let's have the money stay in the State and City/Town, where it was supposed to stay. Things will work better.
Also, the purpose of the Federal is national defence before anything else you named. Don't forget that part. There is nothing in the Constitution that says Federal should have scientists, fund education, or any else of that. Fundamentally, I think it is disgusting that our government gave *ANY* money to the people hurt by the tsunami. *Our* government is supposed to do things for *our* country. If you want to donate to charity for the people in SE Asia, then fine, and if I don't want to, then fine.
You're right, it isn't just liberalspeak. It's just missing the facts and misunderstanding what the Federal's point in existence is supposed to be.
Slashdot Mirror
You aren't just using a word processor, though. FrameMaker is good for authoring, sure, but also for publishing. It does full page layout, but it presents it in a way that it is easy for you to edit your styles. If software like Word had used a similar approach to FrameMaker, we wouldn't be having this discussion. :)
My point about layout in a word processor is that it doesn't do that. Word is an excellent example of why the current word processor concept doesn't work for page layout. Word processors are great for writing things down. When you want to actually publish to the web, or to paper, and have it look right and consistent, now you have to import it to a layout system. Perhaps what you did in Word is good enough, so you publish to PDF so that it looks proper on other machines, printers, etc. It won't change when you email it to someone with another version of the software.
So, I'm not saying that users shouldn't be allowed to change layout, just that it works better when you separate layout from authoring. If all you needed to do was, say, pick your style, and then say what thing is a heading, what thing is a paragraph, etc, then you get more done. This is because you don't worry about the layout/style every time you write something. So you set your style/layout up, and just keep reusing them.
Actually, it is my job to tell people how they should and shouldn't use their computers. That's part of what being IT management is. You get a rought idea of what needs to be done. As a result, you form a good way of doing it, and then implement that solution. Then you train the users on how that solution works; that way they know why they do what they do, and are competent.
LaTeX is not all that hard to use. Making styles isn't that easy, but that's not something you need to do, or at least not something to do often. As part of an IT infrastructure, you could have styles already created and distributed with the software installs. Many of the default styles are fine straight away.
As a couple other people already said, it is clearly the wrong way to do it as you go. You end up with a poorly thought out mess. Occasionally it looks decent. If you use a system designed for publishing things, then you don't *need* to worry about layout as you type, or after you type. You already decided on a style and never need to mess with it again.
You seem to advocate not learning anything about the how or why of anything you do. If people *learned* how to use a computer, none of this is an issue. If people understood that they have to actually do *work* to make things happen, there would be far fewer problems.
BTW - I'm a very visual person myself. I can understand the allure of a visual layout system. I happen to believe that using the bad method when there is a better method *is* stupid. I see that Word is a bad way to do it, and so I learn to do it another way. You are talking about a refusal to change your way simply because it's your way.
If I did everything the quick and easy way, I would be doing a pretty bad job at most everything I attempted. If I only considered options that I already understood, I would cut out most other options. I'm talking about being flexible and willing to consider that another way might be better.
Actually: no and no. I'm quite far away from either of your suggestions.
I don't spend time making things look pretty. I set up a template and everything that I write comes out pretty. I can do that because I decided how I wanted things to look, and set up styles in LyX to do them for me.
You obviously had no idea what tool to choose for the job, as you chose a word processor to do page layout. Yes, most people do their resume in Word, but that doesn't make it correct.
As for LaTeX, no I don't think they could handle writing out in the layout grammer. I think they could use a tool like LyX just fine, though. Just like anything, they would need retraining to get rid of the bad habits from Word, and then they'll be okay. Well, after a while they would be okay.
Also, many publishers also get quite a few files as PDFs. That way they are actually reproduced the way that you thought they were going to be when you finished writing. If you send a Word document, the asinine layout engine in there might decide to reflow the document on you, and make it look completely different.
You touched upon the biggest problem in running computer systems. The users are not trained in anything, and many of them refuse to get any better. That is an unacceptable way to do things, and I work my ass off to change it. The end result is a much more optimized and efficient operation, as people know what they are doing when I'm done.
I mean that Publisher actually was targetted at doing page design. You can place things arbitrarily rather than doing screwed up table formats and space padding. Word is a document editor, not a page layout system. People seem to think that it is, but it does that absolutely horribly... makes Publisher look like a real layout system.
I definitely don't mean that Publisher is any good. Pretty much every other page layout system out there is better.
No, there are two versions of Windows right now that are at all relevant. You can buy either XP Home or XP Pro. Media Center isn't available in stores, and Windows Server isn't the desktop version.
Going from Home or Pro (Office) to Home 1, Home 2, Home 3, Home 4, Office 1, Office 2, Office 3. That would be Starter, Home Basic, Home Pro, Ultimate, Pro, Small Business, Enterprise.
Today, you can't get 1, numbers 2 and 3 are called Home, and 4-7 are called Pro.
The next Windows Server *will not* be this software. They'll probably have another 10 versions for that, since they already have 5 of them (Standard, Enterprise, Datacenter, Web, and Small Business). We can probably expect Windows Server: Starter, Standard, Enterprise, Datacenter, High Security, Cluster, Web, Messaging, Media, and Ultimate. Of course, Starter will only let you run one server app, and only two people can connect to it simultaneously.
The difference is that you don't have 7 variants the desktop version of a distro. For most Linux distros out there, you buy it, and that's all. Then when you install it, you can pick a role for the machine.
Even in distros that do have more than one version, it is rather clear what's going on. You can buy the workstation version, or one of the server versions.
With this, now you have seven desktop variants of the same exact software. People won't know what the differences are, so they won't know which to choose. They'll buy the cheapest, the most expensive, or the default. The cheapest is outright broken, the most expensive (Ultimate) does what Windows Pro can do now. The default will probably end up being Home Premium, or whatever that was, which will do what Home does now.
End result, you'll have a lot of people pirating the "1337 Ultimate r0x0r" edition because they ended up screwing up and getting the wrong one.
Nope. :) I meant it the way that I wrote it. Whenever I have a chance, I encourage people to look at LaTeX.
The idea of the one you propose is OK, but the "you" should be "they". People is plural, so you need to use a plural pronoun. That would imply that when someone has available time, it would be good to look into LaTeX. I try to imply that people should look at it right away, because the way that they are doing it isn't the best way. That is more forceful, but doesn't say that they are outright wrong.
MS does this with every Office release. Just like Apple did with Quicktime and iTunes. All three are bad executions. Inherit from the OS, and people can use the app more effectively, since you have consistent look and feel.
Office always look different than everything else you run. That's the major problem with "skinnable" apps, too. If you don't theme through the UI toolkit, then you aren't consistent. Once you aren't consistent, the computer gets much more difficult to learn and use.
I hate that Firefox, my IM program, Thunderbird, Office, Quicktime, Winamp, Real Player, and various parts of Windows, all look different from one another. Since I'm forced to use application specific themes, I spend time finding the ones that make them all look exactly alike. Then when the base system UI changes, I have to go and do that all over again.
Office is obnoxious, since there are a million poorly laid out options, things are labeled well, and the help system is terrible. Only *some* of the changes ever get brought into the next release of Windows, too. Office XP brought the terrible idea that was "personalized menues", which is the big change that was brought into XP. The UI doesn't look like Luna, nor should it. That should be inherited from the base system. Office, however, codes it in, and so it doesn't look like Windows 2000, *or* like Windows XP.
Publisher is WYSIWYG, but *definitely* not Word. Not only can you not necessarily print the document with the same formatting on another printer, but Word will do reflows based on what printer driver you have, what you selected, version differences between computers, and all sorts of other things.
WYSIWYG is a terrible way to do documents anyway. You shouldn't be spending time making it look right, you should spend it writing the silly thing. I encourage people to look into things like LaTeX whenever I have the chance. It just works so much better for anything more than a quick note or memo. You get consistent and proper layout every time on better software than Word.
Word processor requirements haven't really changed since WordStar. All most people need to do is write something up quickly, and print it. If you're doing layout in a word processor, you've already screwed up. That is not what they are good at, and that's why publishers use things like PDF, TeX, etc.
I think the point here is that if your application runs Java, it is at least, in part, a Java application. This is a C++/Java hybrid, and so is both a Java app and a C++ app.
As a quick hack, this was an acceptable way to do it. As a long term solution, this is not okay. Having an application split between numerous languages increases memory requirements, slows the app down, and makes it harder to maintain.
I don't agree with the decision to code parts of the OO.o suite in Java, and this is no different. Pick a language and stick with it, and the app will work better. People complain about load times for this suite as it is... forcing the additional overhead required to load the JVM is not making it any better.
These sorts of arguments pop up all the time when Java comes up. For some reason, people refuse to understand that if you have another layer of abstraction, you have a slower and larger application. It might not be appreciable, but it exists. In the case of Java, your code executes fairly close to native speeds once the bytecode is loaded and processed. Sometimes the code can be better than your average native code because of the run-time optimization the JVM can do. You still have the additional 20MB+ of RAM use, and the several second load-time from the JVM.
Saugus isn't the only municipality in MA to be in the process of converting away from MS Office to open formats. The delay of the OO.o 2.0 release is what's holding back this from becoming more common. Once that release is out in the wild, expect to hear about a few more towns converting.
I'm converting the town I work for to systems that aren't plagued by vendor lock-in. We're not just moving to open document formats, but trying to avoid any form of vendor lock-in at all! We want to be able to jump to any platform we desire. That way we don't worry about what the x86 market does, whether or not Linux stays stable in the future, or if MS goes under.
Also, there is home-turf support for OpenDocument; OASIS is right up in Billerica.
You aren't actually disagreeing with me, and I'm not really disagreeing with you. I mean that you should be able to do what you want with your property. The limit comes when your action effect other people and their property, when your action would constitute the use of force.
I think you *should* be able to set rules on your property. If you want a rule that says "talk in rhyme or leave", that's fine. You just can't *force* someone to talk in rhyme, but you can make them leave. I don't agree with how the government forces rules on private property in the way that they do now. You should be able to hire whomever you want, having smoking if you want, etc.
Sure, I wish that people could live in a political anarchy, because that is ultimate freedom. I also recognise that people are likely not capable of doing that.
The limits that I'm talking about are over the use of force. You can't let individuals use force over others because it limits the freedom of those people.
Those civil liberties must be protected at all times. The existence of them is why you can't have authority to use force, even on your own property. If someone steals from you, you can't just go onto their property and take it back. The government provides that function.
As I was saying civil liberties are inherent rights that all people have involving themselves. Men, women, white, black, and so on - they are all the same and need to be guaranteed equal treatment by the government. All people need to have the right to live, speak, etc. They are only about yourself. The government doesn't grant those rights, but it must ensure that they are protected.
I'm not saying that *you* have to give equal treatment, because you aren't the government. If you don't want to let white people into your store, then you should be able to say that. You should also be able to have a white person removed from your store, if you want to.
Civil rights tend to be those that are protected by the government, though not granted by it. The are usually the ones that are about your person. Examples could be that all people are equal, or all people have the right to free speech.
Some people do think that we should consider property rights to be inherent. I don't think it would be a bad idea for them to be that way, but I've been definining civil liberties ones that are directly involving your person.
On your land, you should be able to do what you want, so long as your actions aren't forcing someone else to do something against their will. Exceptions to that would be things like defending yourself or your property, and similar. Cases where you need to use force for other circumstances should involve police.
On public land, it's just rules as written in law, in addition to those that are inherent. No laws about what you're allowed to say, wear, etc.
Civil rights come into play when you're talking about that "force". You can have the rules you want, but you can't really enforce them on your own.
Does that make sense?
I see why you want public education, but I don't like the way it seems you are proposing it. I definitely don't think it should be Federal. If you mean to have local governments do most of it, then you would have my support.
We certainly agree about affirmative action. I've always held that it was just more discrimination. It needs to be abolished. If we're going to do public education, then there can be no limitations or encouragments on who can have it; it needs to be all or none. This is coming from an equal rights stance, so that is in addition to what you said about the economic necessity.
Pollution controls are for something that effects more than just the state the pollution is created. In that regard, it is appropriate at the Federal level. This is one of a small number of things that it is true for. Another example would be the spectrum allocation function that the FCC serves. I think we agree on this one, too!
You're assuming that they need money to do that, though. All they need is a cult of personality. Many of the dictatorial leaders of the past were able to come to power, and exercise that power, without money. If people are willing to follow you, then they will volunteer for you, at least for a while. If you change things into being a war, then you pay no one, and take what supplies you need to keep the war going.
I'll agree with you that in a situation like the current US, your way would function. That isn't always the case, though. I also agree that you don't grant civil rights, you just ensure that they aren't trampled.
People need to be secure in themselves before their property matters. Otherwise, you're only free because some g-man type hasn't decided otherwise. Then, the only property rights that save you are those that ensure you have weapons.
Don't get me wrong, property rights are essential, as well. I just think they need to be the second set of essential rights and liberties; ones you do after you've guaranteed civil liberties.
Remember that we don't need cars. All the US is just like Europe types, and environmentalists that don't actually think, say so. They could've just used public transit to get out, because cars are bad, mmmkay.
Anyway, enough of that.
There are so many things that went wrong about this hurricane. Busses and trains should have been kept running to the last minute, getting people out. Hell, if the companies are that greedy and uncaring about human life, then use some of that disaster money to pay them for the rides, or simply force the infrastructure to keep operation and free of charge. That's happened before for good reason.
Next would be to get FEMA, and all those other idiots, to get out of these people's way. Let people leave, don't imprison them. Allow the donations, volunteers, and corporations to aid. You had Walmart donating trucks and trucks of supplies, and they were barred access by the government. You have people dying because they're forced to stay in the Superdome.
The reason the hurrican devestated the area so much was because the government didn't spend their tax revenue on what it is supposed to be for.
Most of the problems were *caused* by the government. There was ample time to get most of the residents out of there, had the government done what they are supposed to. There would less death and suffering, right now, this very minute, if the government got their collective heads out of their asses.
I'd see it as a sign that people need to actually learn how driving works, instead of just what laws cover it. Most legislation in the area has made things worse, just like most other things they legislate.
We need more accountability, and more enforcement of laws, not more laws. A company is polluting? Fine, revoke their charter. Cars are inefficient, then provide actual *usable* alternatives.
Definitely drop this whole waste of life and money that is the "war on terrorism".
Gun deaths aren't invisible, really. They're just not preventable. If you eliminate guns, now you have new weapons: knives, hammers, etc. However, you eliminate an important way for people to defend themselves and their liberties.
Remember, every time someone uses a gun to kill a bunch of people, the media picks it up and makes millions with it. Think of the school shootings, and that sniper guy in DC. Very few people were killed, and it isn't a wide-spread problem, but it's immediately a nation-wide crisis.
If terrorists were to introduce a biological agent, I think you'd have more of a noticable effect. Everyone would be too scared to go outside, which wouldn't be a problem because there would be complete lockdown of everyone. The country would be quarantined and under martial law.
habeas corpus:
n 1: a writ ordering a prisoner to be brought before a judge [syn: writ of habeas corpus] 2: the civil right to obtain a writ of habeas corpus as protection against illegal imprisonment
USC, Clause 2:
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
Habeas Corpus is the only thing that may be suspended in Cases of Invasion or Rebellion. It is not automatically suspended, only *may* be suspended. They aren't really saying they can hold you for any reason, just that they can deny you access to the Court. So if you *are* arrested, you have no way to force them to free you until the Invasion/Rebellion is over.
The effect is the same as what you're saying; I just wanted to clarify that the government isn't actually able to suspend all of your rights, at least not directly.
When people say government, they tend to mean legislature.
You're definitely right that you need a strong government. However, it's all in how that power is divided. If you concentrate it at the highest level, then you will fail. That is what's happening to the US. You have to do it backwards, so that you afford people choice of the laws while maintaining citizenship.
Also, you don't need wealth redistribution if you don't take half of everyone's money in taxes. Kill most of the Federal, and instantly, people have 35% more money. Even if the States implement many of those programs, it will still be much less expensive than the Federal way. And people will be able to move to a State or municipality without whatever idiotic law had been enacted that irritated them.
No, you are completely and totally wrong. Voting is the mechanism to affect change to the system. This doesn't mean a creating a nanny state, but that is one possibility. There are always people that will disagree with any particular thing you try to do. You can't do much about it, but you try to run a system that best represents everyone.
Also, 49% is a bit ridiculous. You assume that there will always be 2% of the vote that will actually matter, because you assume that you will always have about half on each side of an issue.
Civil liberty absolutely *must* come before financial freedom. If you cannot do what you want, then you cannot do what you want with your money. Without civil liberty, the government can just take your money at whim, they can force you to prison for nothing, they can implement massive taxes and you can't do anything about it. Without civil liberty, you have no money, and you have no property.
This is why the US Constitution had tried to have most power at the local level, and decreasing amounts of power as you go up. That way, our Federal level would do the most basic things that were necessary for all states to cooperate on. Those were such things national defense, currency, and trade between states. The States would do a bit more, like provide a good body of law, and large projects, as well as most of the military forces.
That way if you didn't like the laws, you could move to another town, or, at worst, another state.
Yeah, agreed on judicial review. We could have basically the same function without having it codified, but I don't trust people to not argue that it's unconstitutional on the basis that they think everything needs to be enumerated.
You can get the same basic function through court precedent, though. If a higher court consistently throws out cases involving a certain law, and always accepts appeals of that law, then you know that if a lower court rules with it, it will be overturned. You can shortcut this by allowing the higher court to force the law to be removed, and save everybody time.
I would like to see some clauses considered immutable. Division of power and the Bill of Rights would be examples: you could add to them, but not take away. It's a shame that it seems necessary to do it that way... Obviously, public welfare and the commerce clauses need rewording. Better descriptions of what is meant by things like the 1st and 2nd amendments would be in order, too. Mostly a bunch of small changes to prevent the Federal from growing into a borderline fascist oligarchy again.
Actually, I'd love to see that happen. We have so many people on military bases in so many other countries for poor reasons. We fight conflict after conflict that isn't in the defense of our country. It needs to be fixed.
Actually, I do believe the basic job of the Federal hasn't really needed to change over the last 200 years. There was a very good division of power that was set up, and has been largely erased. There are very few new Federal functions that should rightly be forced upon all States. Most things that the Federal does should happen at a lower level of government.
I have a strong suspicion that he was screwing around with that post. I hope nobody honestly thinks that would be a good idea! ;-)
To hell with discretionary budgets. Get rid of most of the Federal entitlement trash programs that should never have been Federal to begin with. Then you suddenly have more than double the available budget to work with, after dropping taxes to compensate for increased State costs. As evidenced by the hurricane, the Federal can't find its ass with both hands. Let's have the money stay in the State and City/Town, where it was supposed to stay. Things will work better.
Also, the purpose of the Federal is national defence before anything else you named. Don't forget that part. There is nothing in the Constitution that says Federal should have scientists, fund education, or any else of that. Fundamentally, I think it is disgusting that our government gave *ANY* money to the people hurt by the tsunami. *Our* government is supposed to do things for *our* country. If you want to donate to charity for the people in SE Asia, then fine, and if I don't want to, then fine.
You're right, it isn't just liberalspeak. It's just missing the facts and misunderstanding what the Federal's point in existence is supposed to be.