I'm not sure why liking the looks of something, and factoring that into your decision, should be something to be ashamed of. The key point is that it is factored in, not that it is everything.
I mean, I'm not going to date a girl that's dumb as a box of rocks and can't hold a conversation, but I'm not going to date her if she is ugly either. It doesn't have to be one or the other, aesthetics factors in and so do other things. Same for a phone, vehicle, operating system, clothing, furniture, etc.
What's funny is that there are so many people who will on the one hand say that Google Docs has few features, and on the other can't comprehend why someone would ever need anything other than plain text in an email.
I am one of those who likes to use limited formatting to make what I am writeing easier to read, whether that be in an email or a "document" per se. Google seems to get this. Gmail's formatting in emails is almost identical to google docs.
I'm curious what it is in MSWord that people find so essential, while at the same time curious why so many people in 2007 are happy to communicate without access to even the most basic formatting like bold, italic, indenting and lists when they would help make a cleaner and easier to read presentation.
I'm with you, I'm quite happy with google docs. But I think I get 100% or more of the functionality of MSOffice rather than 80. Sure, 20% of the potentially useful things aren't there, but there are an additional 20+% to make up for it:
ability to see and edit my documents on anyone's machine without downloading or installing anything
ability to see all past revisions with incredible ease
ability to paste all or part of my document into email (gmail, of course), and have the recipient see the formatting exactly as I intended it (generally minor stuff like bold, italic, lists, and occasionally colors to highlight certain things like additions), and without hassling the recipient with attachments in a proprietary format
ability to put a document on the web so others can see it in about 3 seconds
ability to generate html that I can paste into a web page that will retain all formatting, since it is composed in html to begin with
real time collaboration without hassle
I like to use minor formatting in documents (and yes, some emails) to make them more pleasant to read, but generally they don't have to be perfect (or if they do have to look perfect, it is for web presentation), so google docs is perfect for me.
(b) train the army exclusively and intensively in terrorism, infiltration and guerrilla tactics. And hope that whoever is trying to take you over is unwilling to drop a few nukes, or to just wipe out all civilians with nerve gas or such. Or blatantly and publically torture anyone and everyone till they get the names and locations of the terrorists. The US is at a disadvantage in Iraq because they play by the rules a hell of a lot more than do the bad guys.
And no, I am not supporting US policy there at all. I wish we'd keep to ourself and not go invading other countries. I just think the idea that our country could exist without a military is absurd. It would simply be taken over by someone either within or from elsewhere that had the force to back them up.
In any case, are you advocating this? This would be your preference to live in a world where the "peace" was kept by terrorism?
Do you honestly believe that the German military could control all of America and europe for an extended period of time. Not possible. The populations of those countries would not have allowed it and resistance movements organized by volunteers would have eventually driven them out.
And once they had, they'd probably keep a proper military around to prevent it happening again. Because militias aren't particularly effective against mechanized armies.
But I'm not convinced that they would be driven out quickly at all, if ever. Most likely they would just become "the government" after a while.
Remember, most countries that exist today used to be lots of separate independent states. Those that didn't defend their independence got abosrbed into a bigger entitity.
The insurgents of Iraq are pretty effective, and they are all volunteers.
Effective at.....what exactly? Raining misery on others? And that's somehow a good thing? Thanks, but having something comparable to Iraqi insurgents pretecting my interests doesn't sound like something I want.
Well, that falls under my broad definition of "about 10 minutes".
The US had just won a war (with a lot of help from France, who did have a standing army), so there was certainly an implicit threat to anyone who decided to set up camp here against the wishes of the new government, or against the wishes of France for that matter.
Regardless, back then volunteer militias could be pretty effective. These days they can't. Do you seriously think that if we had nothing but volunteer militias, that we wouldn't be subject to German or Japanese or whoever ruling us now?
People have, from the dawn of time, liked to expand their influence into other lands, whether or not it is against the wishes of the inhabitants of those lands. Not advocating it, just saying it is still a reality, and any place today that wants its independence from (militarily backed) others must have a military themselves. The reason why is pretty obvious if you study a bit of Darwin.
That's not my logic. For a place to be protected (or "defended", if that is a better word), there has to be the assumption that said military would attempt to prevent by force another entity from invading or occupying the region.
I guess your point is that in some cases "protection" could be more accurately labeled "occupation", and while that's true, my point remains. A place that is not defended will soon be invaded, settled, absorbed or occupied by someone who is going to defend it.
Regarding the age, how can they say "60%", and how can you say is is not accurate, when the tolerance isn't specified? Do they mean to the year? (I kinda doubt it)
True but they are protected by the Inter American Mutual Assistance Treaty. Someone is covering their asses. If someone tried to invade them or otherwise push them around, someone else would step in, and they know it.
There isn't a country on the planet that isn't defended by some military force, implicitly or explicitly.
You are the biggest ass I've seen on slashdot. And I've seen a lot of asses on slashdot. But bragging about how much money you make and the vacations you take, as if somehow that means your opinion is correct....wow.
Smart to post as a coward tho, gotta give you that.
Or better yet, we should use eugenics to make future generations smarter. Seems more likely to be effective than your plan to just teach everyone to be less dumb.
Actually, this was needed back in 1850. Well, along with the processors to support it and the apps and stuff.
(are you sure the word you are looking for isn't "want", not "need"? I mean, I sorta wish cotton candy would rain from the sky, but at least I know better than to say that I really "need" it to happen)
I'd say the chance of the article being intact is far greater than the chance of any non-wikipedia page being operationsl after being linked on slashdot.
Most likely, if a high activity page gets vandalized or made "radically different", it will be corrected in about 30 seconds. I suspect your concern is more of a theoretical one than a real world one.
Um....its intentionally stylized. I'm sure partly because photorealism is really expensive, but partly because stylized worked well in the clone wars cartoon.
Just because it is 3d doesn't mean it has to be photorealistic.
Well the whole thing about God being perfect, but making humans flawed, blaming humans for being flawed, and then punishing someone else to make up for those flaws.....that seems a tad silly as well.
Or do you just consider Christianity the idea that we should be nice to each other? Because I don't think Jesus invented that concept.
Well, people do elect the officials who made the decision (or at least the people who hire them), so indirectly, it was the people's decision to decide what to do.
I don't agree with the decision, but I also don't agree with your logic. We pay for lots of things that the government keeps secret. For instance, what if it was police photos of the inside of your house taken during an investigation into burglary? How about photos of injuries to a victim of a sex crime? By your logic that should be publically viewable by anyone.
I don't care about the show (never actually seen it), but I have respect for consumers of anything that gather together and take action when a corporation screws them. Ending a season on a cliffhanger and not then cancelling is, in my opinion, a breach of trust...people invested time in the show under the assumption that they would not be left hanging. And so what that "it's only a TV show". I'm sure there are plenty of things that you care about that other people would find trivial. (getting a tan? gee, that's not superficial or anything....)
Well this isn't software, and calling it "computer technology" is a bit of a stretch, since standalone DVD players aren't what we generally think of as computers.
Unless you are against ALL patents, I don't really see a huge problem here.
Learn a bit of economics. Supply and demand and stuff. Not enough people to milk the cows, the price of milk goes up, more people want to stay in the country and milk cows. It all works out.
It's only a downside if compared to just using regular gmail (which by far is the easiest service to leave....you can use your own domain name your email address, they offer free forwarding, and they don't kill your account if you don't log in for 60 days or whatever it is the others do)
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure why liking the looks of something, and factoring that into your decision, should be something to be ashamed of. The key point is that it is factored in, not that it is everything.
I mean, I'm not going to date a girl that's dumb as a box of rocks and can't hold a conversation, but I'm not going to date her if she is ugly either. It doesn't have to be one or the other, aesthetics factors in and so do other things. Same for a phone, vehicle, operating system, clothing, furniture, etc.
What's funny is that there are so many people who will on the one hand say that Google Docs has few features, and on the other can't comprehend why someone would ever need anything other than plain text in an email.
I am one of those who likes to use limited formatting to make what I am writeing easier to read, whether that be in an email or a "document" per se. Google seems to get this. Gmail's formatting in emails is almost identical to google docs.
I'm curious what it is in MSWord that people find so essential, while at the same time curious why so many people in 2007 are happy to communicate without access to even the most basic formatting like bold, italic, indenting and lists when they would help make a cleaner and easier to read presentation.
I like to use minor formatting in documents (and yes, some emails) to make them more pleasant to read, but generally they don't have to be perfect (or if they do have to look perfect, it is for web presentation), so google docs is perfect for me.
And no, I am not supporting US policy there at all. I wish we'd keep to ourself and not go invading other countries. I just think the idea that our country could exist without a military is absurd. It would simply be taken over by someone either within or from elsewhere that had the force to back them up.
In any case, are you advocating this? This would be your preference to live in a world where the "peace" was kept by terrorism?
But I'm not convinced that they would be driven out quickly at all, if ever. Most likely they would just become "the government" after a while.
Remember, most countries that exist today used to be lots of separate independent states. Those that didn't defend their independence got abosrbed into a bigger entitity. Effective at.....what exactly? Raining misery on others? And that's somehow a good thing? Thanks, but having something comparable to Iraqi insurgents pretecting my interests doesn't sound like something I want.
The US had just won a war (with a lot of help from France, who did have a standing army), so there was certainly an implicit threat to anyone who decided to set up camp here against the wishes of the new government, or against the wishes of France for that matter.
Regardless, back then volunteer militias could be pretty effective. These days they can't. Do you seriously think that if we had nothing but volunteer militias, that we wouldn't be subject to German or Japanese or whoever ruling us now?
People have, from the dawn of time, liked to expand their influence into other lands, whether or not it is against the wishes of the inhabitants of those lands. Not advocating it, just saying it is still a reality, and any place today that wants its independence from (militarily backed) others must have a military themselves. The reason why is pretty obvious if you study a bit of Darwin.
That's not my logic. For a place to be protected (or "defended", if that is a better word), there has to be the assumption that said military would attempt to prevent by force another entity from invading or occupying the region.
I guess your point is that in some cases "protection" could be more accurately labeled "occupation", and while that's true, my point remains. A place that is not defended will soon be invaded, settled, absorbed or occupied by someone who is going to defend it.
Regarding the age, how can they say "60%", and how can you say is is not accurate, when the tolerance isn't specified? Do they mean to the year? (I kinda doubt it)
True but they are protected by the Inter American Mutual Assistance Treaty. Someone is covering their asses. If someone tried to invade them or otherwise push them around, someone else would step in, and they know it.
There isn't a country on the planet that isn't defended by some military force, implicitly or explicitly.
Nice fantasy, though.
You are the biggest ass I've seen on slashdot. And I've seen a lot of asses on slashdot. But bragging about how much money you make and the vacations you take, as if somehow that means your opinion is correct....wow.
Smart to post as a coward tho, gotta give you that.
Or better yet, we should use eugenics to make future generations smarter. Seems more likely to be effective than your plan to just teach everyone to be less dumb.
Actually, this was needed back in 1850. Well, along with the processors to support it and the apps and stuff.
(are you sure the word you are looking for isn't "want", not "need"? I mean, I sorta wish cotton candy would rain from the sky, but at least I know better than to say that I really "need" it to happen)
Or, you know, there's always this.
Tiger is working well for me. An update would be nice, I suppose, but frankly I don't really care that much.
I'm far more interested in seeing apple jump into the phone business and keep everyone else playing catch up.
I'd say the chance of the article being intact is far greater than the chance of any non-wikipedia page being operationsl after being linked on slashdot.
Most likely, if a high activity page gets vandalized or made "radically different", it will be corrected in about 30 seconds. I suspect your concern is more of a theoretical one than a real world one.
Um....its intentionally stylized. I'm sure partly because photorealism is really expensive, but partly because stylized worked well in the clone wars cartoon.
Just because it is 3d doesn't mean it has to be photorealistic.
Well the whole thing about God being perfect, but making humans flawed, blaming humans for being flawed, and then punishing someone else to make up for those flaws .....that seems a tad silly as well.
Or do you just consider Christianity the idea that we should be nice to each other? Because I don't think Jesus invented that concept.
Well, people do elect the officials who made the decision (or at least the people who hire them), so indirectly, it was the people's decision to decide what to do.
I don't agree with the decision, but I also don't agree with your logic. We pay for lots of things that the government keeps secret. For instance, what if it was police photos of the inside of your house taken during an investigation into burglary? How about photos of injuries to a victim of a sex crime? By your logic that should be publically viewable by anyone.
I don't care about the show (never actually seen it), but I have respect for consumers of anything that gather together and take action when a corporation screws them. Ending a season on a cliffhanger and not then cancelling is, in my opinion, a breach of trust...people invested time in the show under the assumption that they would not be left hanging. And so what that "it's only a TV show". I'm sure there are plenty of things that you care about that other people would find trivial. (getting a tan? gee, that's not superficial or anything....)
Well this isn't software, and calling it "computer technology" is a bit of a stretch, since standalone DVD players aren't what we generally think of as computers.
Unless you are against ALL patents, I don't really see a huge problem here.
And yes, it is news.
Learn a bit of economics. Supply and demand and stuff. Not enough people to milk the cows, the price of milk goes up, more people want to stay in the country and milk cows. It all works out.
I mean seriously, whatever.
It's only a downside if compared to just using regular gmail (which by far is the easiest service to leave....you can use your own domain name your email address, they offer free forwarding, and they don't kill your account if you don't log in for 60 days or whatever it is the others do)
True, IP is a data-oriented protocol used for communicating data across a packet-switched internetwork.