This is only good for, as you say, paragraph and font formatting.
Try doing something with revisions, try mixing group revisions and tables and auto-outlining. Try examining styles, then see if you can tell exactly what's going on with the Shift+F1 trick.
Now try doing this in a large document, more than a couple hundred pages.
Anything complex and/or large and Word simply doesn't cut the mustard. Not only that, but Word also has lovely testing cruft left in like this:
Open a new document. Type the following and hit return. =rand(200,99)
I have a document that is a society's statement of bylaws. It uses the auto-numbering feature. It has been revised several times by different people as we pass it around.
Somehow, the document has gotten to the point where certain revisions to the auto-numbering simply *cannot* be accepted.
Actually, that's not entirely true, you can accept the revisions and then save the document, and it looks just fine.
But if you close Word, then re-load the document again, you'll find the revision marks are back. What's worse, is that these show up when anybody opens the document, even if it's been emailed and is on a completely different computer. I found out about this in a rather embarrassing way by mailing the supposedly "cleaned-up" version off to some higher ups in the Society for a look-through. It made me look amateurish for not having finished accepting the revisions and leaving obvious mistakes visible. Hey thanks Microsoft!
Now, I suppose I could manually go in and delete the auto-numbering and just manually number that section, but that would mean fighting with a 17 page auto-numbered document with a numbering change on page 3.
Unfortunately, it's gotten to the point now where I don't think I have much other choice. Either that or just re-type the entire flipping thing - which might actually be easier than futzing around with the auto-numbering feature.
I'd give eye-teeth for control codes like WordPerfect had. Of course, that'd make it too easy for anybody else to translate the doc format too, now wouldn't it. Bastards.
Does
anyone actually support the war on drugs anymore? If so, what are they smoking?
Tobacco, most likely.
Usually the stinkiest variety you can find in big fat cigars as they sit behind their desk coming up with plans to:
A. Increase the effectiveness of the war on drugs - which means they need to: B. Get more money from congress, so that they can: C. Ensure they continue to get paid for making these plans.
You want futile? I remember seeing a documentary where a DEA statistician ran the numbers on cost, inflationary pressures, and the average income of users and found that to actually start affecting the bottom line of the cocaine dealers, we would need to interdict over 95% of all incoming cocaine.
They know this. They know they're not ever going to be able to do this - but do you really think anybody who's livelihood depends on being paid to continually fight this war is going to come out and say, "You know.. we could really be spending this money somewhere else"?
This only works so long as the company is in business.
Consider such things as shell corporations. Created and then destroyed strictly for the purpose of dumping pollutants from another company? By the time folks on the land realize "You know, my crops have all gone to shit.." the shell company is gone, and the actual polluting company can easily proclaim, "Goodness, no! We had no idea that's what Toxicorp was doing. We're as upset as you are, we paid for our waste to be disposed of properly, after all. You should sue them.. oh right.. they're gone. Hm. We really feel for your loss, but it's not our fault. We did what we were supposed to."
Libertarianism tends to assume perfect information, or at least, perfect honesty. Neither of which exist in the real world.
"Valid" Request?
on
CD Copy Stopper
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Could somebody tell me what an "invalid" request from a CD is?
'I want to read this bit, and the next bit, and the one after that..'
After all, I always thought it was what you did with the bits once they were off the CD and in your 'puter that was the problem.
If the mayor had some amount of intelligence, he could say, "Look, we gotta have a proper bidding process here, but feel free to offer your stuff on the same terms for the bid."
This way, he'd avoid bribery allegations and it would also open things up for an even better offer to come through. Also, if Microsoft won (which I would actually expect, especially if they're offering migration support as well as software) they could then point to the city and say "See? Our software got chosen over supposedly 'free' software. Our software is therefore better, and that's why we charge."
Easy opportunity for a double win for MS (they get their test city and get it in an open bid) and a double win for the mayor. (He's squeaky clean, plus gets his free software)
Is there some flaw in the logic that MS and the mayor are seeing here that I've missed, or are they just going blind?
Would you rather pay $150-$200 for a game and not have monthly charges, or pay $40 for a game and $12.95 a month to play it? I think MMORPG's would be more successful, in the terms of user numbers, if they would stop charging by the month.
The credit card companies seem to be doing fine assuming that people would rather pay the latter.
Also, when you say "successful" but define it in "the terms of user numbers" what you really mean is "popular"
And yes, the probably would be a lot more popular. But they'd be a whole lot less successful.
If Delta stopped flying, would demand for flights lower? Hardly. Which means one of two things would happen, one of the other companies would expand to take up the slack, or a number of other smaller companies would rise to fill the niche.
Since all the larger companies are having enough trouble on their own, my bet is on the number of smaller companies.
Now, what if part of the money given to Delta was instead placed in a fund to help out small start-ups? Instead of a few CEO's of a poorly run company being able to claim bonus stock options, you'd have multiple people working to compete with each other, lowering the price of airline service for everybody, while simultaneously putting pressure on to better the service.
The only time a failing company should be bailed out is when that company is governmentally owned to begin with - and the only reason a company should be governmentally owned is to provide a basic service to people that private enterprise wouldn't bother with because it's a losing money option (such as telephone/power service into the boonies - or medical service for people too poor to afford insurance)
..how having a requirement that you will only use open source programs is shutting out Microsoft any more than a requirement that the software have some feature X (say the ability to properly handle right-to-left writing) is shutting out Microsoft?
The legislation leaves the door entirely open for Microsoft to develop open source applications and sell it to the Peruvian government. Should Microsoft choose not to bid in that field, is that the Peruvian government's fault? In fact, they are letting market forces decide and it is the American Ambassador who is getting in the way of that.
In fact, if anything, this is the embodiment of the capitalist mentality. Entity A desires a product with various features. If entity B does not or can not supply those features, they do not get the business, and some entity that can does, and more power to that other entity.
Part of the Peruvian government's desired feature list (if the legislation goes through)is a product that they can inspect, modify, and alter themselves. The Ambassador is saying "Please change your requirements so we can compete" without giving any reason to do so other than without the change, they won't (not can't)compete.
Actually.. if you go non-commercial, you can pick up an Amateur Vanity License for $12.00, with no renewal fee required.
At least, that's what I read on page 19 of your second link. Is there any requirement that if you have an Amateur License you actually have to be broadcasting on the radio waves? I think paying 12.00 to be exempt from the 'webcasting' fees requirement is probably a good deal.
The question is, does the Amateur Vanity qualify for the exemption the NAB is looking for?
Well.. what wasn't mentioned is Batman did have a wee bit of an advantage in the Miller books.
Superman had just recently been at ground zero of a multi-megaton nuclear bomb, one that kicked up enough dust that there was next to no sunlight getting through to the earth. Being that sunlight is what powers Superman, he was in a weakened condition to begin with.
Plus, Superman didn't actually want to kill Batman - he was just there to "bring him in", and considering that Batman was in his elder years in the DKR, Superman was probably holding back considerably.
Mix this with Batman being in a veritable tank of a suit and using Superman's known weaknesses (such as they are) including electricity, sonics, and of course kryptonite (which in the words of the comic "The stuff took years and millions of dollars to synthesize, but luckily I had both")
Put it all together and you wound up with a situation where Batman could beat Superman.. if only just barely.
I can't possibly know with 100% certainty what Microsoft's intentions are, but there stands a reasonable chance they are intended for their benefit and any consumer benefits are purely coincidental.
Hey! Lookee here! We have someone who's caught on to the concept of fiduciary duty!
..it's been taken over by some of the long-time players when the company couldn't support itself. Some of the changes they've made include re-releasing the OOP cards, and doing some tweaks to reign the balance back in.
In addition, rumors are that the new expansion will be entering a full beta a little later this year.
They are selling you 500K/128K with the implicit assumption that you are using a traditional home-user access pattern (i.e. occasional bursts when you hit a good porn site, lotsa intermittent email and ICQ traffic, etc.)
And I'm purchasing with the explicit assumption that what they promise (500K/128K) is what they give. Go figure.
After all, were I to try and sell something like a printer and promise a "lifetime supply of color ink", you can bet there'd be a stink if when the printer ran out I come back and say, "Sorry, we sell that with the implicit assumption that you'll only use the black ink.."
I believe that could easily be construed as fraudulent advertising, if not as direct fraud.
My machine is virtually never turned off and I have not seen a BSOD in well over a year, I virtually never experience problems whatsoever, and those that I do on those rare occassions are directly traceable to a misbehaving app, and the OS DOES NOT get taken down with the app.
Congratulations. Must be nice to be lucky.
Is WinXP more stable than Win9x? Sure. But then again, what isn't?
Is WinXP stable? Maybe, but it's certainly not rock-solid like you seem to be claiming. At least, not the personal edition. Apps crash pretty regularly, including MS apps when they're the only thing running (IE6 to be specific, though I have had Word and/or Office bottom out on me as well), although they do have the nifty "report this bug to microsoft" feature now.. and I have had crashes that forced a reboot of the entire system as well.
Could it be I just have bad luck? Sure.. s'pose it's possible. But how come I have never had such bad luck when I'm on the Linux machine downstairs?
Every other software vendor has had the same options and opportunities available to them
Really?
So you're saying that BeOS had the same options and opportunities available? They could have gone to the hardware companies and said "Look, if you give any indication that you're putting Windows on the same system, we're going to charge you double for the BeOS license" and not get laughed out of the office?
You're suggesting that Netscape had the opportunity to use the revenue from their massive monopoly on OEM OS sales to back them giving away their browser until it crushed the competition?
Possibly you're suggesting that Word Perfect or Lotus had the opportunity to leverage their intimate knowledge of propietary Windows APIs to make their software run as fast as any competitor, or that they could modify the underlying OS to cause problems with Microsoft Word or Excel?
Now, can you argue that other companies dropped the ball? Sure, some did. But don't be so quick to assume stupidity on the part of a public that was robbed of any choice from a company leveraging it's monopoly in one area (the OS) to eliminate competition in other areas.
If you want to push the idea that we should change our habits "just in case the global warming theory is correct", I would say thats akin to agnosticism... "better sorta believe in a god just in case he/she/it is real... wouldn't want to go to hell"
Considering the mass effects global warming (if true) will have vs. the very localized effect of believing, the major economic damage (think the insurance companies had it bad in 9/11?), the loss of life and arable land, the spread of disease, and the long term damage to environmental systems that work to support us, I would say the possible effects are a little more dire than you make them out to be.
Now, we can continue to drive our economy forward at 100 mph through the environmental fog and hope that we don't go over a cliff, or we can choose to slow down the economy and see if we can't turn on some headlights.
Those who argue for no change are essentially saying "There is no cliff", but they don't have any better a view through the fog than those who are screaming "For goodness sakes stop!"
If you've made it clear that you'd rather stay with your current company, just that the money offer is *so* good you'd be a fool to refuse, then that's not so bad. All it shows employers is that *other* employers are recognizing you as a competitive advantage - and if that's the case, it's something you want to keep.
Slashdot Mirror
If you had, you'd realize that these machines are in response to a *lack* of labor available.
This is only good for, as you say, paragraph and font formatting.
Try doing something with revisions, try mixing group revisions and tables and auto-outlining. Try examining styles, then see if you can tell exactly what's going on with the Shift+F1 trick.
Now try doing this in a large document, more than a couple hundred pages.
Anything complex and/or large and Word simply doesn't cut the mustard. Not only that, but Word also has lovely testing cruft left in like this:
Open a new document.
Type the following and hit return.
=rand(200,99)
Enjoy the testing cruft.
I have a document that is a society's statement of bylaws. It uses the auto-numbering feature. It has been revised several times by different people as we pass it around.
Somehow, the document has gotten to the point where certain revisions to the auto-numbering simply *cannot* be accepted.
Actually, that's not entirely true, you can accept the revisions and then save the document, and it looks just fine.
But if you close Word, then re-load the document again, you'll find the revision marks are back. What's worse, is that these show up when anybody opens the document, even if it's been emailed and is on a completely different computer. I found out about this in a rather embarrassing way by mailing the supposedly "cleaned-up" version off to some higher ups in the Society for a look-through. It made me look amateurish for not having finished accepting the revisions and leaving obvious mistakes visible. Hey thanks Microsoft!
Now, I suppose I could manually go in and delete the auto-numbering and just manually number that section, but that would mean fighting with a 17 page auto-numbered document with a numbering change on page 3.
Unfortunately, it's gotten to the point now where I don't think I have much other choice. Either that or just re-type the entire flipping thing - which might actually be easier than futzing around with the auto-numbering feature.
I'd give eye-teeth for control codes like WordPerfect had. Of course, that'd make it too easy for anybody else to translate the doc format too, now wouldn't it. Bastards.
..which goes a long way to explain why some people actually liked Episode I.
..post something like that when I don't have the mod points to boost it up.
Sheesh.
Tobacco, most likely.
Usually the stinkiest variety you can find in big fat cigars as they sit behind their desk coming up with plans to:
A. Increase the effectiveness of the war on drugs - which means they need to:
B. Get more money from congress, so that they can:
C. Ensure they continue to get paid for making these plans.
You want futile?
I remember seeing a documentary where a DEA statistician ran the numbers on cost, inflationary pressures, and the average income of users and found that to actually start affecting the bottom line of the cocaine dealers, we would need to interdict over 95% of all incoming cocaine.
They know this. They know they're not ever going to be able to do this - but do you really think anybody who's livelihood depends on being paid to continually fight this war is going to come out and say, "You know.. we could really be spending this money somewhere else"?
This only works so long as the company is in business.
Consider such things as shell corporations. Created and then destroyed strictly for the purpose of dumping pollutants from another company? By the time folks on the land realize "You know, my crops have all gone to shit.." the shell company is gone, and the actual polluting company can easily proclaim, "Goodness, no! We had no idea that's what Toxicorp was doing. We're as upset as you are, we paid for our waste to be disposed of properly, after all. You should sue them.. oh right.. they're gone. Hm. We really feel for your loss, but it's not our fault. We did what we were supposed to."
Libertarianism tends to assume perfect information, or at least, perfect honesty. Neither of which exist in the real world.
Could somebody tell me what an "invalid" request from a CD is?
'I want to read this bit, and the next bit, and the one after that..'
After all, I always thought it was what you did with the bits once they were off the CD and in your 'puter that was the problem.
..the aversion to a public bidding process.
If the mayor had some amount of intelligence, he could say, "Look, we gotta have a proper bidding process here, but feel free to offer your stuff on the same terms for the bid."
This way, he'd avoid bribery allegations and it would also open things up for an even better offer to come through. Also, if Microsoft won (which I would actually expect, especially if they're offering migration support as well as software) they could then point to the city and say "See? Our software got chosen over supposedly 'free' software. Our software is therefore better, and that's why we charge."
Easy opportunity for a double win for MS (they get their test city and get it in an open bid) and a double win for the mayor. (He's squeaky clean, plus gets his free software)
Is there some flaw in the logic that MS and the mayor are seeing here that I've missed, or are they just going blind?
Would you rather pay $150-$200 for a game and not have monthly charges, or pay $40 for a game and $12.95 a month to play it? I think MMORPG's would be more successful, in the terms of user numbers, if they would stop charging by the month.
The credit card companies seem to be doing fine assuming that people would rather pay the latter.
Also, when you say "successful" but define it in "the terms of user numbers" what you really mean is "popular"
And yes, the probably would be a lot more popular.
But they'd be a whole lot less successful.
Think it through even farther..
If Delta stopped flying, would demand for flights lower? Hardly. Which means one of two things would happen, one of the other companies would expand to take up the slack, or a number of other smaller companies would rise to fill the niche.
Since all the larger companies are having enough trouble on their own, my bet is on the number of smaller companies.
Now, what if part of the money given to Delta was instead placed in a fund to help out small start-ups? Instead of a few CEO's of a poorly run company being able to claim bonus stock options, you'd have multiple people working to compete with each other, lowering the price of airline service for everybody, while simultaneously putting pressure on to better the service.
The only time a failing company should be bailed out is when that company is governmentally owned to begin with - and the only reason a company should be governmentally owned is to provide a basic service to people that private enterprise wouldn't bother with because it's a losing money option (such as telephone/power service into the boonies - or medical service for people too poor to afford insurance)
..for saying what I wanted to better than I ever could.
..how having a requirement that you will only use open source programs is shutting out Microsoft any more than a requirement that the software have some feature X (say the ability to properly handle right-to-left writing) is shutting out Microsoft?
The legislation leaves the door entirely open for Microsoft to develop open source applications and sell it to the Peruvian government. Should Microsoft choose not to bid in that field, is that the Peruvian government's fault? In fact, they are letting market forces decide and it is the American Ambassador who is getting in the way of that.
In fact, if anything, this is the embodiment of the capitalist mentality. Entity A desires a product with various features. If entity B does not or can not supply those features, they do not get the business, and some entity that can does, and more power to that other entity.
Part of the Peruvian government's desired feature list (if the legislation goes through)is a product that they can inspect, modify, and alter themselves. The Ambassador is saying "Please change your requirements so we can compete" without giving any reason to do so other than without the change, they won't (not can't)compete.
Actually.. if you go non-commercial, you can pick up an Amateur Vanity License for $12.00, with no renewal fee required.
At least, that's what I read on page 19 of your second link. Is there any requirement that if you have an Amateur License you actually have to be broadcasting on the radio waves? I think paying 12.00 to be exempt from the 'webcasting' fees requirement is probably a good deal.
The question is, does the Amateur Vanity qualify for the exemption the NAB is looking for?
Well.. what wasn't mentioned is Batman did have a wee bit of an advantage in the Miller books.
Superman had just recently been at ground zero of a multi-megaton nuclear bomb, one that kicked up enough dust that there was next to no sunlight getting through to the earth. Being that sunlight is what powers Superman, he was in a weakened condition to begin with.
Plus, Superman didn't actually want to kill Batman - he was just there to "bring him in", and considering that Batman was in his elder years in the DKR, Superman was probably holding back considerably.
Mix this with Batman being in a veritable tank of a suit and using Superman's known weaknesses (such as they are) including electricity, sonics, and of course kryptonite (which in the words of the comic "The stuff took years and millions of dollars to synthesize, but luckily I had both")
Put it all together and you wound up with a situation where Batman could beat Superman.. if only just barely.
What's a good non-computer career that pays well?
Apparantly the position of "Senator" fits the bill.
I can't possibly know with 100% certainty what Microsoft's intentions are, but there stands a reasonable chance they are intended for their benefit and any consumer benefits are purely coincidental.
Hey! Lookee here! We have someone who's caught on to the concept of fiduciary duty!
..it's been taken over by some of the long-time players when the company couldn't support itself. Some of the changes they've made include re-releasing the OOP cards, and doing some tweaks to reign the balance back in.
In addition, rumors are that the new expansion will be entering a full beta a little later this year.
They are selling you 500K/128K with the implicit assumption that you are using a traditional home-user access pattern (i.e. occasional bursts when you hit a good porn site, lotsa intermittent email and ICQ traffic, etc.)
And I'm purchasing with the explicit assumption that what they promise (500K/128K) is what they give. Go figure.
After all, were I to try and sell something like a printer and promise a "lifetime supply of color ink", you can bet there'd be a stink if when the printer ran out I come back and say, "Sorry, we sell that with the implicit assumption that you'll only use the black ink.."
I believe that could easily be construed as fraudulent advertising, if not as direct fraud.
My machine is virtually never turned off and I have not seen a BSOD in well over a year, I virtually never experience problems whatsoever, and those that I do on those rare occassions are directly traceable to a misbehaving app, and the OS DOES NOT get taken down with the app.
Congratulations. Must be nice to be lucky.
Is WinXP more stable than Win9x? Sure. But then again, what isn't?
Is WinXP stable? Maybe, but it's certainly not rock-solid like you seem to be claiming. At least, not the personal edition. Apps crash pretty regularly, including MS apps when they're the only thing running (IE6 to be specific, though I have had Word and/or Office bottom out on me as well), although they do have the nifty "report this bug to microsoft" feature now.. and I have had crashes that forced a reboot of the entire system as well.
Could it be I just have bad luck? Sure.. s'pose it's possible. But how come I have never had such bad luck when I'm on the Linux machine downstairs?
Imagine, a business where the consumers actually gets to pick what they want to hear....can't be any worse than the 5% success rate you have now
Have you listened to the "hits" lately?
I think you're making an awful big assumption when you say it won't be any worse than the 5% rate now.
Every other software vendor has had the same options and opportunities available to them
Really?
So you're saying that BeOS had the same options and opportunities available? They could have gone to the hardware companies and said "Look, if you give any indication that you're putting Windows on the same system, we're going to charge you double for the BeOS license" and not get laughed out of the office?
You're suggesting that Netscape had the opportunity to use the revenue from their massive monopoly on OEM OS sales to back them giving away their browser until it crushed the competition?
Possibly you're suggesting that Word Perfect or Lotus had the opportunity to leverage their intimate knowledge of propietary Windows APIs to make their software run as fast as any competitor, or that they could modify the underlying OS to cause problems with Microsoft Word or Excel?
Now, can you argue that other companies dropped the ball? Sure, some did. But don't be so quick to assume stupidity on the part of a public that was robbed of any choice from a company leveraging it's monopoly in one area (the OS) to eliminate competition in other areas.
If you want to push the idea that we should change our habits "just in case the global warming theory is correct", I would say thats akin to agnosticism... "better sorta believe in a god just in case he/she/it is real... wouldn't want to go to hell"
Considering the mass effects global warming (if true) will have vs. the very localized effect of believing, the major economic damage (think the insurance companies had it bad in 9/11?), the loss of life and arable land, the spread of disease, and the long term damage to environmental systems that work to support us, I would say the possible effects are a little more dire than you make them out to be.
Now, we can continue to drive our economy forward at 100 mph through the environmental fog and hope that we don't go over a cliff, or we can choose to slow down the economy and see if we can't turn on some headlights.
Those who argue for no change are essentially saying "There is no cliff", but they don't have any better a view through the fog than those who are screaming "For goodness sakes stop!"
I personally know who I've chosen to listen to.
The temperature is increasing...but does that mean we're heading for disaster, or is this the earth working as it always has?
Why do you assume the two are mutually exclusive?
Depends on how you word it.
If you've made it clear that you'd rather stay with your current company, just that the money offer is *so* good you'd be a fool to refuse, then that's not so bad. All it shows employers is that *other* employers are recognizing you as a competitive advantage - and if that's the case, it's something you want to keep.