I have two books, one in its second edition and one in its first. Both have lots of equations. I insisted on using LaTeX and having the books typeset in LaTeX, the publisher agreed, and it's one of the best decisions I've ever made.
Here is why I'm happy: THE EQUATIONS IN THE PAGE PROOFS ARE THE SAME AS THE EQUATIONS IN MY ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPT. I can't tell you how important that is. Most editors and proofreaders do not have a clue about technical material. If you write in Word or some other format that is "rekeyed" by the publisher, I guarantee that by the time you get to page proofs, many of your equations will be unrecognizable, and you will go through hell trying to straighten things out. The publishers insist that they can avoid this problem, but friends who are authors and who did not use LaTeX assure me that the publishers mess things up. In my case, various things were fouled up (graph legends for example were frequently reversed because the graphs had been redrawn), but not the equations.
Lots of folks here are saying to use what the publisher tells you to use, they have a system, etc. I had five publishing houses (three commercial and two university) offer me a contract, and all agreed to produce the book in LaTeX. They just contract out the compositing. this may vary by publisher, but in my case, it was not a big deal. YMMV.
It doesn't sound to me like you have a 360. It will scratch disks even if you don't "reorient" it. All you need to do is move it gently while it's playing, keeping it in the orientation it has. In fact, it would never have occurred to me to reorient it while playing.
My son and I scratched the first two disks we used before we realized how sensitive it is. In one case the machine was vertical, in the second case it was horizontal.
Having experienced the problem firsthand, I do *not* side with Microsoft. I have had laptops, portable CD players, and even desktops that I moved while a disk was playing (I build computers from parts so I do move them around sometimes while they're working). I have *never* experienced anything like this.
Microsoft totally deserves the grief they're getting for this.
Yes, I didn't mean to imply that no physicians know statistics. But my wife has an MD from a first-rate school, and statistics simply wasn't part of the training. It would be different for a research physician.
It is true that doctors are not scientists, and in fact most doctors in my experience have very poor training in statistics. However, doctors are not claiming to have done the studies themselves. The expert panels that make vaccine recommendations do have scientific and statistical expertise, and the research journals publishing the studies that are the basis for the recommendations use peer review and try very hard to make sure the papers are scientifically valid. The doctors in turn spend a lot of time reading journals, and they do keep up with official recommendations. And most do have some kind of background in science even if they are not scientists.
The typical parent who refuses vaccines has *no* scientific background, does not read any journals, has no statistical expertise and (unlike their pediatrician) has never seen a child die from one of the diseases against which the vaccines protect.
Given the evidence, the belief that refusing vaccines is safeguarding your child is magical thinking, pure and simple.
I got the Antec NSK2400. It's nice looking (as such things go;-) and designed for silent operation. I bought a big passive heatsink for the CPU which I topped with a low speed fan. It all fit in the case, but just barely. The system is not completely silent but it's quieter than my home theater receiver, which has a fan. I found SilentPCReview invaluable. Good luck!
I use Myth under Debian for OTA recording (we don't have cable). It's been running for about two years and it has been great but it was *not* easy to set up (I viewed it as a hobbyist project and boy did it fit the bill:-) I'm sure it would be easier now with one of the prepackaged distributions, but here is my recommendation:
If you enjoy tinkering and you want to see how a DVR can be put together under Linux, give Myth a try. If you are even close to on the fence, go with Tivo. If you have cable, encryption could be a hurdle to using Myth, make sure you explore that first.
Absolutely. Suppose you had predicted 3 years ago that there would be a class of consumer machine where Linux would have a 30% market share. This would have been considered very good news in the/. community. This is a great success for Linux.
The interesting question is whether the new Linux buyers are "sticky". If they continue to run Linux, netbooks will be remembered as the initial toehold for Linux on the desktop.
The hell Microsoft doesn't have control over this. This is Microsoft's fault and it is rewriting history and denying the obvious to say otherwise.
Let's start with the fact that Microsoft execs overrode *internal* objections to shipping Vista, and they consciously certified marginal Intel systems as "vista-ready" when they knew they weren't. There's no reason they couldn't have made more of a push to have drivers ready, and they could have publicly identified the hardware that was incompatible. They knew exactly what they were doing, and they made a deliberate decision to push the new OS onto platforms for which it wasn't appropriate, and before the appropriate drivers existed.
What about the systems loaded with crapola? Microsoft has been bullying systems manufacturers for years. Microsoft could have required that in order to get the cheap wholesale price, the systems makers had to distribute their malware some other way (e.g., a rebate coupon if you run a CD and install all the crap). This issue simply wasn't on Microsoft's radar screen. It wasn't on their radar screen because the home user is not their target market. They care about 2000+ seat enterprise installations, and those folks buy machines that are built to order and precertified, and don't have the garbage software and buggy drivers.
Microsoft missed several things this time around, including the netbook boom (oops, guess we can't kill XP), the google/apple boom (turns out that home users now value reliability, simplicity, design, and enterprise capabilities, such as synchronized calendars, outside of the enterprise), and the internet's capability to severely punish arrogance and incompetence. They didn't realize that a lousy home experience was going to spill back into the enterprise.
This is a company that has $18 billion in annual profit on $60 billion in annual sales. They have the resources to get stuff done properly. What they do not have these days is competent management. They are on the way down. They are firmly ensconced in the corporate world, it will take a long time, but the direction is finally clear. I wish they were on the way up and making our computing lives better, but they aren't.
Unfortunately, I don't have anything constructive to contribute. I just wanted to commend you for trying to do your job well. Many K-12 teachers I observe (I have kids in school) work hard and conscientiously and put in long hours.
Well here's a true story that may help you understand why many of us react badly to Word. I wrote a 20-odd page report (using Word 2003) in which I structured the document as you describe: I used auto-numbered and auto-formatted headings, auto-numbered figures, etc. I tried to structure it as aI would a LaTeX document. After completing the document I discovered to my dismay that inserting a table of contents (which I had not done at the outset) stripped out all heading 1, heading 2, etc. formatting and numbering and deleted all the bullets in my bullet lists. This was completely reproducible. I poked around on the web and found an exasperated posting by a microsoft engineer explaining that this was an easily fixed problem in the default template (I don't recall the exact term he used).
Along similar lines, I have colleagues who were writing a book and selected Word for the collaboration feature. Several hundred pages into the project, Word altered various numbering schemes, moved the graphics, and generally rendered the document unusable. The publisher hired a Word consultant to fix the mess.
I have never doubted that in the hands of an expert Word can work well. Possibly you could have forestalled our problems. But lots of my colleagues have stories like mine.
This is not a stupid question. Let me say at the outset that I avoided LaTeX for years and boy, was I wrong. LaTeX proponents often talk about the pretty formatting, but for me the advantage is the robust document structure you easily create.
LaTeX pretty much requires you to create a structured document, and the document class you're using automatically handles the formatting, display, and numbering, and it is easy to do extensive cross-referencing of equations, tables, figures, etc. By structured I mean that you create entries like
\section{This is my first section}
This creates a new automatically numbered section, creates a formatted section head, and resets all equation and subsection numbering. Entries automatically show up in a table of contents if you elect to create one (a one-line command). If you create structured technical documents, it's fantastic. Tables are a pain, but for me that's the one big weakness. And the more you have to control the detailed formatting of specific pages (which I don't need to do), the less you will want to use LaTeX.
Yes you can do all this in Word or OpenOffice, but it requires setup and in my experience almost *no* user of those programs bothers to do it. It's just too much of a pain. With LaTeX, on the other hand, it's hard to extensively change the default formats (this is what the OP meant by creating a new document class) but the standard classes for articles and books are fine for many people. New LaTeX users have to overcome the urge to tweak the formatting. Once you just leave it alone, it's liberating. You can focus on content and logical structure, and the result is a decent-looking document.
It appears to me that there is a movement *towards* the use of LaTeX in economics (my field), most commonly by using Scientific Word. This is just an impression, and I can't speak about other fields.
Finally, the experience one has with LaTeX will depend on the front end (which can simplify entering equation and structure commands). Lots of folks use Scientific Word. I use Emacs/AucTeX. I am *very* happy with that combination.
I use both Word (2007) and LaTeX. I think you're completely and utterly wrong, and I note the complete lack of specifics in your post. Just consider this entry from the Microsoft Office Team Blog. Create a 3 column table to number an equation! You've got to be kidding me.
Layer on top of this the fact that in Office 2007 Microsoft has created a totally new equation editor that isn't compatible with its old editor. How long will this one last? Maybe they're finally turning Word into a capable, consistent tool, but it will take several more versions to be sure.
Making complicated tables in LaTeX is a pain, I'll grant that. But why don't you tell us exactly what it is that makes the latest version of Word such a capable tool for creating lengthy, cross-referenced, equation-laden documents.
I haven't typed on any these small keyboards, but based on photographs, I would think xmodmap/xkeycaps would be your friend. On every keyboard I use, I set the control key to be whatever is left of the A, and I put Alt in the lower left corner. xkeycaps, which is the program I use to generate the key remapping file, is showing its age, but it works, and you only need to use it once per computer.
I completely agree with your first suggestion, Lessons in Electric Circuits by Tony Kuphaldt. I think he's done a fantastic job.
I would also highly recommend The Electronics Club. There are wonderful explanations, example circuits, and a recommended starter kit of parts and components, including suggestions for how to organize everything. It's a great site.
Just possibly, Microsoft is sincere about supporting ODF.
Microsoft cannot possibly be ignoring Apple, Google, the EU, the emergence in the last year of mainstream desktop linux and the $400 laptop, the OLPC, the mixed press that accompanied Vista and Office 2007, the bad press received by Windows mobile and the Zune, etc. It is a company that will go through major changes in the next few years. Ballmer is the boss, but probably not for long. Ray Ozzie is CTO and he and a host of managers below him will ultimately be rewarded for figuring out how to succeed in this new world where Microsoft has lost a lot of its market dominance and even more of its mindshare.
If I were at Microsoft I'd be figuring that hardcore corporate MS shops are going to stay MS shops for the forseeable future whether I support ODF or not (they've probably built their business around Exchange server). The fringe --- governments, small business, K-12 schools, universities --- are gone in the next two years unless I start to interoperate in a serious way. So I would support ODF, and I would do it sincerely, and I would figure that by doing so I'd be holding on to some of my customers in the short run. In the long run, well, everything is up for grabs. I'd be better be doing some heavy R&D in the hopes of competing with Apple, Google, and the linux community.
It depends on what you're doing and with whom you're working. For example, the equation editor changed between 2003 and 2007. If you create a document with equations using the native 2007 editor, there is no way for a 2003 user to edit the document. It's not a matter of the file format, the ability to edit that kind of equation simply doesn't exist in 2003. And similarly, 2003 equations are not readily edited in 2007 unless you find the old editor and make it available. So it's a mess, but upgrading everyone is one way to get compatibility going forward. Keeping everyone in 2003 is another solution. But, I mean, WTF?? Who makes decisions like this? I read the blogs from the Microsoft programmers about the new equation editor and my jaw hit the floor. They're goofing around with half-implementing things (such as equation numbering) that LaTeX nailed 20 years ago. They should be ashamed.
It's as if a kindergartner was in charge of the release process.
You make an interesting point and I think you're correct. It's now common to hear people say "they maintain their records in Excel", and mean it as a pejorative comment.
A few months ago I heard a presentation from these guys. They have a service to verify that if Bank A thinks it has an OTC derivatives deal with Bank B, Bank B agrees that it does and that they both agree on the terms. (It's amazing to me that anyone should need this.) Casual record-keeping (Excel) and incompatible systems (due to mergers) are a big part of the problem.
Can you enlighten me about exactly when and how OO will support VBA macros? I have been reading this for years, experimenting with it for years, and OO (including 3.0 beta) always barfs on my VBA macros. I've written a textbook that comes with a macro-laden spreadsheet, and a few months ago I ported my stuff to OO (for the benefit of OS X users). So I would love to see this supported --- I don't want to maintain two codebases --- but I've grown weary of the vague promises.
I think you're correct about variability. It seems to be up to the local school boards, most of which are not equipped to decide about math curricula. And of course the no-child-left-behind legislation has had consequences that were almost certainly not intended (apparent dumbing down of math to raise the pass rate on state exams, for example).
The recent report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel is mandatory reading for anyone concerned about math education in the US. The report details exactly how things are going wrong. Our school district (where I have kids in grades 5, 7, and 9) uses a program called "Everyday Math", which is atrocious. (The University of Chicago should be embarrassed.) The emphasis is on breadth rather than depth, and there is a "spiral" so you learn a little bit every year about a lot of different topics. Students frequently have to write little essays explaining how they got the answer. (The linked report explains that spiralling is poor pedagogy, and that good math students can't always write an explanatory essay -- they just know what to do.) The high achieving families all have their kids tutored at the local Kumon center so they can learn their multiplication tables. The low income families just suffer the consequences of inferior education. The school board and district administrators are clueless, having just agreed to try out 3 different math programs in 3 different middle schools. How on earth will they evaluate the results?
In our district, the nonsense stops in high school (which is administratively separate), and and I actually think my ninth-grade daughter is learning more math than I did at the same age. But you have to survive elementary and middle school math to get to the high quality teaching. It's such a waste.
I understand people who have positive reactions to 2007. I give Microsoft a *lot* of credit for being courageous and trying something different. I take away all that credit and then some for forcing *everyone* to change in lockstep, and for the change in file formats that more or less forced people to upgrade.
For crying out loud, we live in a world with Vi vs Emacs flamewars! One size does most certainly does *not* fit all.
Well, I'm in a university setting and I use 2003 where I can. The ribbon sends me up a wall and I know a lot of people who detest it. Of course being different is an issue, why shouldn't it be? Why should we all have to relearn a familiar interface???
Just a few comments on the new UI:
1. Where are the VBA editor and the form controls? (by default, not after you've found the "show developer ribbon" in the "popular" (??) options section.)
2. Where is solver? (Hint: not in the add-ins menu) And why does it install under "data" rather than "formulas"
3. Why are "macros" under "view" rather than under "data" or "formulas"?
4. It's great to learn those keystrokes, except that solver is "alt-A y2" on one machine and "alt-a y3" on another.
5. If the ribbon is so great, why didn't Microsoft use it to display the advanced options?
Generally speaking, I find the ribbon steers me to the use of the mouse much more than I prefer. I *hate* mouse-centric interfaces unless you're doing something like drawing.
I wonder why Microsoft couldn't have made the old menu system optional? Borland had alternative menu systems 20 years ago. In a corporate setting, let IT disable the menus if they really want to.
I have no objection to anyone saying they prefer the ribbon. But you're being shallow to dismiss those who don't.
What Microsoft seems not to understand is that for many of us, Windows and Office complicate our lives, rather than solving our problems. The periodic costs Microsoft imposes on users in order to keep up its earnings is enormous. The Office 2007 upgrade (which I had to install for compatibility with colleagues) broke some of my old macros (I simply got a message saying that the macros --- which worked fine in office 97, 2000, and 2003 --- were no longer available), it fouled up existing documents containing equations, and it required me to relearn the interface. I mean, WTF?? Making the ribbon mandatory rather than optional is the behavior of a bully. The WGA check (more than once a year) is the behavior of a bully. Outlook's lack of compatability with everything else is the behavior of a bully.
So what do I do in response? I pay hundreds of dollars a year to the FSF, EFF, the MikTeX project, OpenOffice, and other projects. I am slowly switching my kids to Ubuntu. (Microsoft is making this easy because the dual-booting Windows XP install at home is getting slower by the day and the kids are starting to complain. It takes *forever* to reboot from Window back into Windows.) If Microsoft offered *better* software that was *compatible* with alternatives, and that did not threaten to lock up my data and render it unavailable, I would buy their software willingly. As it is, I am moving slowly, but definitely, to remove Microsoft from my computing life. I suspect that the same force driving me --- Microsoft's disregard for the user --- is driving a lot of the open source movement.
Slashdot Mirror
I have two books, one in its second edition and one in its first. Both have lots of equations. I insisted on using LaTeX and having the books typeset in LaTeX, the publisher agreed, and it's one of the best decisions I've ever made.
Here is why I'm happy: THE EQUATIONS IN THE PAGE PROOFS ARE THE SAME AS THE EQUATIONS IN MY ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPT. I can't tell you how important that is. Most editors and proofreaders do not have a clue about technical material. If you write in Word or some other format that is "rekeyed" by the publisher, I guarantee that by the time you get to page proofs, many of your equations will be unrecognizable, and you will go through hell trying to straighten things out. The publishers insist that they can avoid this problem, but friends who are authors and who did not use LaTeX assure me that the publishers mess things up. In my case, various things were fouled up (graph legends for example were frequently reversed because the graphs had been redrawn), but not the equations.
Lots of folks here are saying to use what the publisher tells you to use, they have a system, etc. I had five publishing houses (three commercial and two university) offer me a contract, and all agreed to produce the book in LaTeX. They just contract out the compositing. this may vary by publisher, but in my case, it was not a big deal. YMMV.
It doesn't sound to me like you have a 360. It will scratch disks even if you don't "reorient" it. All you need to do is move it gently while it's playing, keeping it in the orientation it has. In fact, it would never have occurred to me to reorient it while playing.
My son and I scratched the first two disks we used before we realized how sensitive it is. In one case the machine was vertical, in the second case it was horizontal.
Having experienced the problem firsthand, I do *not* side with Microsoft. I have had laptops, portable CD players, and even desktops that I moved while a disk was playing (I build computers from parts so I do move them around sometimes while they're working). I have *never* experienced anything like this.
Microsoft totally deserves the grief they're getting for this.
Yes, I didn't mean to imply that no physicians know statistics. But my wife has an MD from a first-rate school, and statistics simply wasn't part of the training. It would be different for a research physician.
It is true that doctors are not scientists, and in fact most doctors in my experience have very poor training in statistics. However, doctors are not claiming to have done the studies themselves. The expert panels that make vaccine recommendations do have scientific and statistical expertise, and the research journals publishing the studies that are the basis for the recommendations use peer review and try very hard to make sure the papers are scientifically valid. The doctors in turn spend a lot of time reading journals, and they do keep up with official recommendations. And most do have some kind of background in science even if they are not scientists.
The typical parent who refuses vaccines has *no* scientific background, does not read any journals, has no statistical expertise and (unlike their pediatrician) has never seen a child die from one of the diseases against which the vaccines protect.
Given the evidence, the belief that refusing vaccines is safeguarding your child is magical thinking, pure and simple.
I got the Antec NSK2400. It's nice looking (as such things go ;-) and designed for silent operation. I bought a big passive heatsink for the CPU which I topped with a low speed fan. It all fit in the case, but just barely. The system is not completely silent but it's quieter than my home theater receiver, which has a fan. I found SilentPCReview invaluable. Good luck!
I use Myth under Debian for OTA recording (we don't have cable). It's been running for about two years and it has been great but it was *not* easy to set up (I viewed it as a hobbyist project and boy did it fit the bill :-) I'm sure it would be easier now with one of the prepackaged distributions, but here is my recommendation:
If you enjoy tinkering and you want to see how a DVR can be put together under Linux, give Myth a try. If you are even close to on the fence, go with Tivo. If you have cable, encryption could be a hurdle to using Myth, make sure you explore that first.
Good luck!
Absolutely. Suppose you had predicted 3 years ago that there would be a class of consumer machine where Linux would have a 30% market share. This would have been considered very good news in the /. community. This is a great success for Linux.
The interesting question is whether the new Linux buyers are "sticky". If they continue to run Linux, netbooks will be remembered as the initial toehold for Linux on the desktop.
The hell Microsoft doesn't have control over this. This is Microsoft's fault and it is rewriting history and denying the obvious to say otherwise.
Let's start with the fact that Microsoft execs overrode *internal* objections to shipping Vista, and they consciously certified marginal Intel systems as "vista-ready" when they knew they weren't. There's no reason they couldn't have made more of a push to have drivers ready, and they could have publicly identified the hardware that was incompatible. They knew exactly what they were doing, and they made a deliberate decision to push the new OS onto platforms for which it wasn't appropriate, and before the appropriate drivers existed.
What about the systems loaded with crapola? Microsoft has been bullying systems manufacturers for years. Microsoft could have required that in order to get the cheap wholesale price, the systems makers had to distribute their malware some other way (e.g., a rebate coupon if you run a CD and install all the crap). This issue simply wasn't on Microsoft's radar screen. It wasn't on their radar screen because the home user is not their target market. They care about 2000+ seat enterprise installations, and those folks buy machines that are built to order and precertified, and don't have the garbage software and buggy drivers.
Microsoft missed several things this time around, including the netbook boom (oops, guess we can't kill XP), the google/apple boom (turns out that home users now value reliability, simplicity, design, and enterprise capabilities, such as synchronized calendars, outside of the enterprise), and the internet's capability to severely punish arrogance and incompetence. They didn't realize that a lousy home experience was going to spill back into the enterprise.
This is a company that has $18 billion in annual profit on $60 billion in annual sales. They have the resources to get stuff done properly. What they do not have these days is competent management. They are on the way down. They are firmly ensconced in the corporate world, it will take a long time, but the direction is finally clear. I wish they were on the way up and making our computing lives better, but they aren't.
Unfortunately, I don't have anything constructive to contribute. I just wanted to commend you for trying to do your job well. Many K-12 teachers I observe (I have kids in school) work hard and conscientiously and put in long hours.
Thank you, and best of luck.
It sounds as if the Android team is trying to meet a deadline and do so responsibly. This is a welcome departure for Google!
Now if only they could add a task list to Google Calendar as part of the Android rollout...
Well here's a true story that may help you understand why many of us react badly to Word. I wrote a 20-odd page report (using Word 2003) in which I structured the document as you describe: I used auto-numbered and auto-formatted headings, auto-numbered figures, etc. I tried to structure it as aI would a LaTeX document. After completing the document I discovered to my dismay that inserting a table of contents (which I had not done at the outset) stripped out all heading 1, heading 2, etc. formatting and numbering and deleted all the bullets in my bullet lists. This was completely reproducible. I poked around on the web and found an exasperated posting by a microsoft engineer explaining that this was an easily fixed problem in the default template (I don't recall the exact term he used).
Along similar lines, I have colleagues who were writing a book and selected Word for the collaboration feature. Several hundred pages into the project, Word altered various numbering schemes, moved the graphics, and generally rendered the document unusable. The publisher hired a Word consultant to fix the mess.
I have never doubted that in the hands of an expert Word can work well. Possibly you could have forestalled our problems. But lots of my colleagues have stories like mine.
This is just an FYI. Thanks for your post.
This is not a stupid question. Let me say at the outset that I avoided LaTeX for years and boy, was I wrong. LaTeX proponents often talk about the pretty formatting, but for me the advantage is the robust document structure you easily create.
LaTeX pretty much requires you to create a structured document, and the document class you're using automatically handles the formatting, display, and numbering, and it is easy to do extensive cross-referencing of equations, tables, figures, etc. By structured I mean that you create entries like
\section{This is my first section}
This creates a new automatically numbered section, creates a formatted section head, and resets all equation and subsection numbering. Entries automatically show up in a table of contents if you elect to create one (a one-line command). If you create structured technical documents, it's fantastic. Tables are a pain, but for me that's the one big weakness. And the more you have to control the detailed formatting of specific pages (which I don't need to do), the less you will want to use LaTeX.
Yes you can do all this in Word or OpenOffice, but it requires setup and in my experience almost *no* user of those programs bothers to do it. It's just too much of a pain. With LaTeX, on the other hand, it's hard to extensively change the default formats (this is what the OP meant by creating a new document class) but the standard classes for articles and books are fine for many people. New LaTeX users have to overcome the urge to tweak the formatting. Once you just leave it alone, it's liberating. You can focus on content and logical structure, and the result is a decent-looking document.
It appears to me that there is a movement *towards* the use of LaTeX in economics (my field), most commonly by using Scientific Word. This is just an impression, and I can't speak about other fields.
Finally, the experience one has with LaTeX will depend on the front end (which can simplify entering equation and structure commands). Lots of folks use Scientific Word. I use Emacs/AucTeX. I am *very* happy with that combination.
I use both Word (2007) and LaTeX. I think you're completely and utterly wrong, and I note the complete lack of specifics in your post. Just consider this entry from the Microsoft Office Team Blog. Create a 3 column table to number an equation! You've got to be kidding me.
Layer on top of this the fact that in Office 2007 Microsoft has created a totally new equation editor that isn't compatible with its old editor. How long will this one last? Maybe they're finally turning Word into a capable, consistent tool, but it will take several more versions to be sure.
Making complicated tables in LaTeX is a pain, I'll grant that. But why don't you tell us exactly what it is that makes the latest version of Word such a capable tool for creating lengthy, cross-referenced, equation-laden documents.
I haven't typed on any these small keyboards, but based on photographs, I would think xmodmap/xkeycaps would be your friend. On every keyboard I use, I set the control key to be whatever is left of the A, and I put Alt in the lower left corner. xkeycaps, which is the program I use to generate the key remapping file, is showing its age, but it works, and you only need to use it once per computer.
If you're using windows, KeyTweak is great.
I completely agree with your first suggestion, Lessons in Electric Circuits by Tony Kuphaldt. I think he's done a fantastic job.
I would also highly recommend The Electronics Club. There are wonderful explanations, example circuits, and a recommended starter kit of parts and components, including suggestions for how to organize everything. It's a great site.
Just possibly, Microsoft is sincere about supporting ODF.
Microsoft cannot possibly be ignoring Apple, Google, the EU, the emergence in the last year of mainstream desktop linux and the $400 laptop, the OLPC, the mixed press that accompanied Vista and Office 2007, the bad press received by Windows mobile and the Zune, etc. It is a company that will go through major changes in the next few years. Ballmer is the boss, but probably not for long. Ray Ozzie is CTO and he and a host of managers below him will ultimately be rewarded for figuring out how to succeed in this new world where Microsoft has lost a lot of its market dominance and even more of its mindshare.
If I were at Microsoft I'd be figuring that hardcore corporate MS shops are going to stay MS shops for the forseeable future whether I support ODF or not (they've probably built their business around Exchange server). The fringe --- governments, small business, K-12 schools, universities --- are gone in the next two years unless I start to interoperate in a serious way. So I would support ODF, and I would do it sincerely, and I would figure that by doing so I'd be holding on to some of my customers in the short run. In the long run, well, everything is up for grabs. I'd be better be doing some heavy R&D in the hopes of competing with Apple, Google, and the linux community.
It depends on what you're doing and with whom you're working. For example, the equation editor changed between 2003 and 2007. If you create a document with equations using the native 2007 editor, there is no way for a 2003 user to edit the document. It's not a matter of the file format, the ability to edit that kind of equation simply doesn't exist in 2003. And similarly, 2003 equations are not readily edited in 2007 unless you find the old editor and make it available. So it's a mess, but upgrading everyone is one way to get compatibility going forward. Keeping everyone in 2003 is another solution. But, I mean, WTF?? Who makes decisions like this? I read the blogs from the Microsoft programmers about the new equation editor and my jaw hit the floor. They're goofing around with half-implementing things (such as equation numbering) that LaTeX nailed 20 years ago. They should be ashamed.
It's as if a kindergartner was in charge of the release process.
You make an interesting point and I think you're correct. It's now common to hear people say "they maintain their records in Excel", and mean it as a pejorative comment.
A few months ago I heard a presentation from these guys. They have a service to verify that if Bank A thinks it has an OTC derivatives deal with Bank B, Bank B agrees that it does and that they both agree on the terms. (It's amazing to me that anyone should need this.) Casual record-keeping (Excel) and incompatible systems (due to mergers) are a big part of the problem.
Can you enlighten me about exactly when and how OO will support VBA macros? I have been reading this for years, experimenting with it for years, and OO (including 3.0 beta) always barfs on my VBA macros. I've written a textbook that comes with a macro-laden spreadsheet, and a few months ago I ported my stuff to OO (for the benefit of OS X users). So I would love to see this supported --- I don't want to maintain two codebases --- but I've grown weary of the vague promises.
OO 3 beta has a working solver. At least on simple problems (I haven't tested it extensively), it works just fine.
I think you're correct about variability. It seems to be up to the local school boards, most of which are not equipped to decide about math curricula. And of course the no-child-left-behind legislation has had consequences that were almost certainly not intended (apparent dumbing down of math to raise the pass rate on state exams, for example).
The recent report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel is mandatory reading for anyone concerned about math education in the US. The report details exactly how things are going wrong. Our school district (where I have kids in grades 5, 7, and 9) uses a program called "Everyday Math", which is atrocious. (The University of Chicago should be embarrassed.) The emphasis is on breadth rather than depth, and there is a "spiral" so you learn a little bit every year about a lot of different topics. Students frequently have to write little essays explaining how they got the answer. (The linked report explains that spiralling is poor pedagogy, and that good math students can't always write an explanatory essay -- they just know what to do.) The high achieving families all have their kids tutored at the local Kumon center so they can learn their multiplication tables. The low income families just suffer the consequences of inferior education. The school board and district administrators are clueless, having just agreed to try out 3 different math programs in 3 different middle schools. How on earth will they evaluate the results?
In our district, the nonsense stops in high school (which is administratively separate), and and I actually think my ninth-grade daughter is learning more math than I did at the same age. But you have to survive elementary and middle school math to get to the high quality teaching. It's such a waste.
I understand people who have positive reactions to 2007. I give Microsoft a *lot* of credit for being courageous and trying something different. I take away all that credit and then some for forcing *everyone* to change in lockstep, and for the change in file formats that more or less forced people to upgrade.
For crying out loud, we live in a world with Vi vs Emacs flamewars! One size does most certainly does *not* fit all.
Well, I'm in a university setting and I use 2003 where I can. The ribbon sends me up a wall and I know a lot of people who detest it. Of course being different is an issue, why shouldn't it be? Why should we all have to relearn a familiar interface???
Just a few comments on the new UI:
1. Where are the VBA editor and the form controls? (by default, not after you've found the "show developer ribbon" in the "popular" (??) options section.)
2. Where is solver? (Hint: not in the add-ins menu) And why does it install under "data" rather than "formulas"
3. Why are "macros" under "view" rather than under "data" or "formulas"?
4. It's great to learn those keystrokes, except that solver is "alt-A y2" on one machine and "alt-a y3" on another.
5. If the ribbon is so great, why didn't Microsoft use it to display the advanced options?
Generally speaking, I find the ribbon steers me to the use of the mouse much more than I prefer. I *hate* mouse-centric interfaces unless you're doing something like drawing.
I wonder why Microsoft couldn't have made the old menu system optional? Borland had alternative menu systems 20 years ago. In a corporate setting, let IT disable the menus if they really want to.
I have no objection to anyone saying they prefer the ribbon. But you're being shallow to dismiss those who don't.
What Microsoft seems not to understand is that for many of us, Windows and Office complicate our lives, rather than solving our problems. The periodic costs Microsoft imposes on users in order to keep up its earnings is enormous. The Office 2007 upgrade (which I had to install for compatibility with colleagues) broke some of my old macros (I simply got a message saying that the macros --- which worked fine in office 97, 2000, and 2003 --- were no longer available), it fouled up existing documents containing equations, and it required me to relearn the interface. I mean, WTF?? Making the ribbon mandatory rather than optional is the behavior of a bully. The WGA check (more than once a year) is the behavior of a bully. Outlook's lack of compatability with everything else is the behavior of a bully.
So what do I do in response? I pay hundreds of dollars a year to the FSF, EFF, the MikTeX project, OpenOffice, and other projects. I am slowly switching my kids to Ubuntu. (Microsoft is making this easy because the dual-booting Windows XP install at home is getting slower by the day and the kids are starting to complain. It takes *forever* to reboot from Window back into Windows.) If Microsoft offered *better* software that was *compatible* with alternatives, and that did not threaten to lock up my data and render it unavailable, I would buy their software willingly. As it is, I am moving slowly, but definitely, to remove Microsoft from my computing life. I suspect that the same force driving me --- Microsoft's disregard for the user --- is driving a lot of the open source movement.