I welcome any word users out there to tell me how to stop the auto capitalisation in cells the automatic bulleting of lists and how to get rid of a stop put in by word or stop it creating it in the first place.
What version of Word? I don't know how much it varies, but in XP do Tools > AutoCorrect Options, and turn off those you don't want.
I personally usually like the autocorrect feature because it'll correct typos.
one more thing which would be useful would be how to create a footnote on a page that stays on the page at the bottom even if i choose to add more text to the page
Why would you want this?
You can sorta emulate it though by placing a (floating) text box on the page with some text on it.
references to previous pages that will refer to the correct page even though page 97 on the original may now be page 108
You can sort of do this. Insert -> Reference -> Cross Reference will let you add such references to certain elements.
Press Ctrl+C *twice* to copy to the clipboard for something a little more permanant
What version of Excel do you have? I just tried it in XP and it doesn't seem to work, at least not right. It does open the clipboard pane though, from which I can paste anything. (But that's still not how C&P works in any other program I know.)
First, I'd argue that that option shouldn't even be present.
Second, it DEFINITELY shouldn't be on by default.
Third, why is Excel and Powerpoint MDI but Word SDI?
Fourth and not least, THANK YOU. That will go on my list of "annoying 'features' to turn off on a new Office install" list, along with clippy, the show toolbars in a single row, menu transitions, and menu item hiding.
From what I have seen when teaching classes, even having a grammar checking tool available--and turned on by default--is not sufficient.
Neither are spelling checkers.
Eye halve a spelling check her;
It came with my pea sea. It plane lee marks four my revue Miss steaks aye kin knot sea.
Eye ran this poem threw it Your sure reel glad two no. Its vary polished in it's weigh, My checker tolled me sew.
And yet I think almost anyone agree that they are very useful.
The idea is not that Word will proofread your document, no matter how much some people think it will. The idea is that if you make a typo, there's a fair chance that it will catch it for you.
And if someone uses it as if it were a proofreader, all I can do is hope that someday their ineptitude will catch up with them.
On several occasions, it has made incorrect 'suggestions'.
I've had it make cyclic suggestions. (Saying sentence form A is wrong and suggesting sentence form B, but also saying sentence form B is wrong for which it suggests a change to sentence form A.)
For those who write at and above a truly professional level, grammar checking should be disabled
I disagree unless it's reporting a particularily high percentage AND number of false errors. I still maintain it's useful for typo catching.
I had problems with Word 2K. In fact, one time I made a typo that the grammar checker caught, saw the underlining, recognized the error, and changed it. However, Word promptly underlined it again. Curious, I checked to see what it suggested I change it to. To my amusement, I saw that it suggested I change it back to what I had in the first place. Just to see what would happen, I did. It again underlined it and suggested I change it to its original suggestion. Near as I can tell, this would have gone on forever. (I think the error was a subject/verb agreement problem; I missed the 's' at the end of the verb or something. I don't have Word 2K installed so can't try to duplicate it.)
In fact, I turn off grammar check entirely when working in Word 2K; I find it's wrong much more than it's right.
However, I now use Word XP. I find that its grammar checking is much improved. In fact, I'd say that it has over a 50% success rate in finding errors. (This is probably somewhat due to the facts that I'm a somewhat sloppy typist.)
I view it like spell checkers: they spot a lot of careless errors, but you have to know what you're doing anyway. (For instance, I made an it's/its typo in this post. I know the difference, and will spot mistakes of the sort when reading almost all the time, even if I'm not actively looking for errors. Because I like to make sure my posts about grammar are particularly free of errors, I put it in Word. It found it. It also found another 'error', saying that 'I find it's wrong' should be 'I find its wrong'. I didn't make that change, because Word's wrong on that count. I feel sort of silly using such an easy example of a grammar error (though one that people still mess up all too often), but it was nice and handy.)
(The following analysis, until stated otherwise, only applies to Word. For why, see the last few paragraphs.)
But what if you want to edit it after you inserted it? Then it makes sense to have it in 'view' and not under 'insert'.
To me, the situation seems as follows: * When you're adding them for the first time, it makes the most sense to have them in the 'insert' menu. However, having them under 'view' does make a small amount of sense, and furthermore is unlikely to cause the user to think about whether that's what they want if they see it in the menu. (Also, in OO, chosing Insert -> (Header|Footer) -> (whatever is selected) removes the header or footer. A lot of sense THAT makes, putting the removal in the 'insert' menu.)
* When you're editing it later, it makes the most sense to have it in 'view'. Having it in 'insert' makes (to me) absolutely no sense at all, and, I think, could even cause the user to wonder if that's what they are looking for even if they find it there while exploring. (For instance, maybe it will replace the header and footer I already have. Or maybe it will add ANOTHER header or footer above and below what I have.)
From these it seems to me safest to put it under 'view'.
(End Word-specific part.)
However, for OO it makes the most sense to put it in 'insert'. The reason is that the header and footer are always available, always there to view and edit. Thus there's no action required to do it.
For Word, this isn't so. If in the 'normal' editing mode, the header and footer are not visible. In Word XP, choosing 'view -> header and footer' changes the view to page mode (thus showing the header and footer) until the user is done editing them and chooses close, at which point it returns to normal mode. So in Word, a specific action is sometimes needed to view the header and footer. (Remember, OO doesn't have an equivalent of normal mode, and only operates in page view. (Or web view, which is irrelevant to this conversation.))
Thus it seems to me that for both applications, the header and footer option is exactly where it should be.
(Incidentally, I'm not sure whether I like Word's or OO's style of dealing with the header and footer in page view. I think I like Word's better, but probably out of familiarity rather than merit. Though I can't figure out how to change from editing text to editing the header/footer in OO without using the mouse. There's probably a way, but I almost gurantee that someone with MS Office will find out how to do that before someone with OO.)
Ahhh, another LaTeX* fan. How I appreciate thee...
(I think LaTeX generates much nicer documents than either OO Writer or Word because it balances line (and page, but that's much less important) breaks better and does proper spacing after periods.)
May I recommend that you look at LaTeX Beamer? It produces some very nice electronic slides (among the nicest I've seen I think), and can be nicely incorporated with text for handouts and stuff.
I know you said somewhere that you like white boards, but if you need or want to make an electronic presentation it's a viable option.
* I think the mountain range casing makes the name look absolutely stupid. I also think the ".org" on the end of OOo makes IT look really stupid.
However, I have never had a problem using MS Office files created by Open Office in either of the two programs
I have, once. There was a PPT presentation created in OpenOffice (1.1.4) that crashed PowerPoint. Which tells me that both OpenOffice and PowerPoint have a bug related to that file, because OO very probably (though I guess not certainly) generated an invalid file and PowerPoint shouldn't crash even on an invalid file.
I'll agree on calc. Excel has two absolutely braindead UI aspects. I don't know what the designers are on over in Redmond, but they must be smoking something pretty strong. They are:
1. If you select a range of cells, copy it, and make another edit, Excel loses what you copied.
I ran into this a TON when I was recording timesheets for a group project for a college class. The times were all kept in a single sheet, sorted by person. As the semester went on and I had to update them, the other members would email me their times as a separate Excel file and I would copy and paste into the master sheet. This, of course, required shifting down everyone's entries by however many lines were in the person's I was adding. Which means I had to open their timesheet, see the number of lines, change to the master timesheet, move down the cells, change back to the person's sheet, copy, change back to the master sheet, and paste. And if I didn't shift the other cells far enough down, I'd have to shift again, change again, copy again, change again, then paste. (There's probably a better way to do this, having it shift automatically, but I don't know it.)
OTOH, Excel's formula editor is nicer. OO color codes cell ranges with the formula as it's displayed in the cell, but Excel also color codes it in the edit box where you type in the formula. (Also, I thought that typing something like '=sum(A1:A3' then pressing enter would make it complain about an invalid entry, but I just tried it and it autoclosed the parens. Maybe it was like that in pre-2.0 OO?)
2. Excel operates in what I call a fake-non-MDI mode. In that it pretends it's not an MDI application, but it actually is. Each document you open shows up in a separate taskbar icon. And yet there's only one window. And if you close that window it closes all your documents. Congratulations MS, you found a way to make MDI even more frustrating. (In fact, I *never* found MDI frustrating before Excel. And yet I can't tell you how many times I've closed all my documents by mistake.)
For these two reasons I've stopped using Excel.
However, I cannot agree that the other applications in OO are up to MS Office's standards, at least in XP. And given that I think everything I've done in Word XP I've done in Word 2K, I think it applies there as well. See another of my posts for the gripes I have with Writer that I could think of at the time.
Finally, at least Writer 2.0 has track changes. I'm almost positive 1.1 has it too because I'm almost positive I've used it, though I don't have it installed anymore so can't be for sure. But in Writer 2, it's under edit -> changes -> record. (However, as I mention in that post, it's substantially inferior to Word's offering. Deleted text is shown strikeout (like, I think, Word 2K) instead of in an external comment (like in XP+). This both is uglier (harder to read,...) and also messes up formatting because deleted text takes up space, which is probably not what you want. At least based on my use of that feature.)
The quality of the track changes (edit -> changes -> record, which to me doesn't make much sense, though how much is due to it being in a poor location "objectively" and how much is it not being tools -> track changes I don't know; I do think that the latter makes more sense though) is around that of, oh, Word 2000. At the latest. XP adds a substantial (IMO) improvement.
The header/footer being in View makes sense if you look at the perspective of using it in the Normal view mode. Then the headers and footers aren't visible, and view -> header and footer makes them visible. (To edit them, it takes you to page view mode. When done, it returns you to normal mode.) It being in the insert menu doesn't make sense, because it also edits existing ones.
Speaking of the normal mode, I often prefer that to the page layout. OO doesn't have it.
Speaking of the page layout mode, Word's is better; you can collapse the top and bottom margins. (Which adds another time when you'd need to go to the menu for the header/footer.)
Oh, and this is somewhat superficial, but I'm somewhat picky when it comes to applications using native widgets. I really like native widgets. OO doesn't use native widgets. They are a good imitation, but not the same thing.
By contrast, there's only one thing that I think makes more sense in OpenOffice, which is page layout in the format menu instead of the file menu. However, even that only makes sense from the view of the application itself, and the fact that it violates the conventions of *every other application I can think of that has page setup* sorta outweighs that.
This isn't nearly the same though. Now you have two different ways to raise a window; for the Gimp you use your keyboard shortcut, but for everything else you do it normally.
It's a workaround, not a solution.
(Easier I think is just to dedicate a virtual desktop entirely to the Gimp; this is what I do under Linux)
I agree that an option would be nice, and that a UI like the current Gimp might work better if you have multiple monitors. (I suspect I'd still want the raising behavior, based on how I use the Gimp under Linux with multiple virtual desktops, but the prefence would be much less.) However, I think that for one-window, one-virtual-desktop editing, the current interface sucks. And sucks to the point I don't use it.
(Under Linux I dedicate an entire virtual desktop to the Gimp, that way I don't encounter the problem.)
(And if anynoe happens to know of a decent Windows virtual desktop manager I'd be interested to hear about that too. I've tried MS's VDM or whatever they call it and found it slow and not nearly as featured as a decent one, so I got rid of it.)
It will also raise all the windows when you choose one, probably. I have the Gimp installed under Windows, and even though I'm happy with most of the Gimp (even most of the UI!) I almost never use it when I'm in Windows. The reason is that I find it very annoying that if I have another application open, switch to that, and switch back to the Gimp (not minimizing anything, just changing z-orders) I have to go through and manually raise the window with all the tools, the document(s) I'm working on, and the two tool option windows I use. IMO, raising one of them should raise them ALL, and I have yet to find a way to do that. If you know of one (Windows OR Linux), please tell me.
load it up with porn, gigs of it. you don't even have to look at it. the point is to have something, anything, lots of it, that other people want to download and that you won't get in trouble for sharing (heh, sorry porn makers)
Hate to break it to you, but that porn is just as copyrighted as the music. I don't think I've ever heard of someone suing over sharing porn, but nevertheless you should be aware that from a purely legal standpoint, what you're doing is no more right than if you were sharing the latest song or movie. It's just that you're far less likely to be called on it.
That woman lost her case, and got a fraction of what she was asking for in "damages".
Um, no. While the final terms were sealed, the latest public ruling was over $500K paid to her. It's safe to assume that the sealed settlement was at least most of that. Even if her lawyer took most (unlikely, I think 40% is fairly standard if the case was pro bono) she still made out quite nicely finanically.
(And all this ignores the fact that she at least originally only wanted medical expenses, and only refused because McDonald's didn't give. She didn't ask for suffering or punative damages until the suit.)
Even back when AOL was the biggest ISP, many people I knew picked companies like Juno because they charged half as much and ran just as quick....All they did was package in an IM.
This isn't true. In fairness to them, a lot of the AOL-only stuff was quite useful. It's probably a lot less so now that the WWW is big (I haven't had AOL for years), but back with AOL 2.5 when they first offered an internet connection (or at least a browser), some of their stuff was invaluable. There were libraries of example code to download, etc.
It's also possible that I wasn't able to find them online at the time, but I at least found AOL to be very useful.
The studios don't want this because then you just hook up a recorder to the output of the dongle. Sure, it won't be quite the quality of if you were to get the clear content, but it'll be as good as what you would see on the TV.
The idea of HDCP in the first place is to make it nearly impossible to put a recorder anywhere behind the actual screen.
5.1 sound with my sound card (onboard realtek alc650), at least as far as I've been able to tell.
TV with the new ATI TV Wonder Elite tuner.
Perhaps the Sims 2, I haven't tried it.
I want to change to Linux as my primary OS, and these are the gripes I have. Everything else works with essentially no more work than Windows...
The first one I may get around with VMWare which I really need anyway, the second by buying a new sound card (which I plan to anyway), and the third one with a Hauppauge (this is disappointing though, the quality of the Theatre 550 is, IMO, quite a bit better than Hauppauge's; I assume this won't work throguh VMWare), and the 4th by booting to Windows for the infrequent times I'll want to use it.
Also a problem with revolving doors. In fact, another poster pointed to this case in which a toddler was killed by a revolving door. (It's an automatic revolving door.)
There's a Douglas Adams article in A Salmon of Doubt talking about a trip to some resort on the Great Barrier Reef (I think). The resort had people stationed at all of the doors to open it for visitors.
The reason? It was a popular Japanese tourist destination, and they were often so used to automatic doors that they would sometimes stand in front of them for a minute or two waiting for them to open automatically.
Um, you're missing the point. The text of the paper has been available for some time. They didn't discover a NEW paper, just the original of one of them.
And as such, an image of what Einstien actually wrote is the ONLY way to present it in a way that hasn't been available before.
Slashdot Mirror
I welcome any word users out there to tell me how to stop the auto capitalisation in cells the automatic bulleting of lists and how to get rid of a stop put in by word or stop it creating it in the first place.
What version of Word? I don't know how much it varies, but in XP do Tools > AutoCorrect Options, and turn off those you don't want.
I personally usually like the autocorrect feature because it'll correct typos.
one more thing which would be useful would be how to create a footnote on a page that stays on the page at the bottom even if i choose to add more text to the page
Why would you want this?
You can sorta emulate it though by placing a (floating) text box on the page with some text on it.
references to previous pages that will refer to the correct page even though page 97 on the original may now be page 108
You can sort of do this. Insert -> Reference -> Cross Reference will let you add such references to certain elements.
I know, but:
1. I still think there should be a menu option for it because it makes the option visible,
2. especially because such a menu makes it plainly obvious how you can access it without the mouse.
Press Ctrl+C *twice* to copy to the clipboard for something a little more permanant
What version of Excel do you have? I just tried it in XP and it doesn't seem to work, at least not right. It does open the clipboard pane though, from which I can paste anything. (But that's still not how C&P works in any other program I know.)
You can turn this off...
Thanks
First, I'd argue that that option shouldn't even be present.
Second, it DEFINITELY shouldn't be on by default.
Third, why is Excel and Powerpoint MDI but Word SDI?
Fourth and not least, THANK YOU. That will go on my list of "annoying 'features' to turn off on a new Office install" list, along with clippy, the show toolbars in a single row, menu transitions, and menu item hiding.
Neither are spelling checkers.
And yet I think almost anyone agree that they are very useful.
The idea is not that Word will proofread your document, no matter how much some people think it will. The idea is that if you make a typo, there's a fair chance that it will catch it for you.
And if someone uses it as if it were a proofreader, all I can do is hope that someday their ineptitude will catch up with them.
On several occasions, it has made incorrect 'suggestions'.
I've had it make cyclic suggestions. (Saying sentence form A is wrong and suggesting sentence form B, but also saying sentence form B is wrong for which it suggests a change to sentence form A.)
For those who write at and above a truly professional level, grammar checking should be disabled
I disagree unless it's reporting a particularily high percentage AND number of false errors. I still maintain it's useful for typo catching.
What version are you using?
I had problems with Word 2K. In fact, one time I made a typo that the grammar checker caught, saw the underlining, recognized the error, and changed it. However, Word promptly underlined it again. Curious, I checked to see what it suggested I change it to. To my amusement, I saw that it suggested I change it back to what I had in the first place. Just to see what would happen, I did. It again underlined it and suggested I change it to its original suggestion. Near as I can tell, this would have gone on forever. (I think the error was a subject/verb agreement problem; I missed the 's' at the end of the verb or something. I don't have Word 2K installed so can't try to duplicate it.)
In fact, I turn off grammar check entirely when working in Word 2K; I find it's wrong much more than it's right.
However, I now use Word XP. I find that its grammar checking is much improved. In fact, I'd say that it has over a 50% success rate in finding errors. (This is probably somewhat due to the facts that I'm a somewhat sloppy typist.)
I view it like spell checkers: they spot a lot of careless errors, but you have to know what you're doing anyway. (For instance, I made an it's/its typo in this post. I know the difference, and will spot mistakes of the sort when reading almost all the time, even if I'm not actively looking for errors. Because I like to make sure my posts about grammar are particularly free of errors, I put it in Word. It found it. It also found another 'error', saying that 'I find it's wrong' should be 'I find its wrong'. I didn't make that change, because Word's wrong on that count. I feel sort of silly using such an easy example of a grammar error (though one that people still mess up all too often), but it was nice and handy.)
(The following analysis, until stated otherwise, only applies to Word. For why, see the last few paragraphs.)
But what if you want to edit it after you inserted it? Then it makes sense to have it in 'view' and not under 'insert'.
To me, the situation seems as follows:
* When you're adding them for the first time, it makes the most sense to have them in the 'insert' menu. However, having them under 'view' does make a small amount of sense, and furthermore is unlikely to cause the user to think about whether that's what they want if they see it in the menu. (Also, in OO, chosing Insert -> (Header|Footer) -> (whatever is selected) removes the header or footer. A lot of sense THAT makes, putting the removal in the 'insert' menu.)
* When you're editing it later, it makes the most sense to have it in 'view'. Having it in 'insert' makes (to me) absolutely no sense at all, and, I think, could even cause the user to wonder if that's what they are looking for even if they find it there while exploring. (For instance, maybe it will replace the header and footer I already have. Or maybe it will add ANOTHER header or footer above and below what I have.)
From these it seems to me safest to put it under 'view'.
(End Word-specific part.)
However, for OO it makes the most sense to put it in 'insert'. The reason is that the header and footer are always available, always there to view and edit. Thus there's no action required to do it.
For Word, this isn't so. If in the 'normal' editing mode, the header and footer are not visible. In Word XP, choosing 'view -> header and footer' changes the view to page mode (thus showing the header and footer) until the user is done editing them and chooses close, at which point it returns to normal mode. So in Word, a specific action is sometimes needed to view the header and footer. (Remember, OO doesn't have an equivalent of normal mode, and only operates in page view. (Or web view, which is irrelevant to this conversation.))
Thus it seems to me that for both applications, the header and footer option is exactly where it should be.
(Incidentally, I'm not sure whether I like Word's or OO's style of dealing with the header and footer in page view. I think I like Word's better, but probably out of familiarity rather than merit. Though I can't figure out how to change from editing text to editing the header/footer in OO without using the mouse. There's probably a way, but I almost gurantee that someone with MS Office will find out how to do that before someone with OO.)
Ahhh, another LaTeX* fan. How I appreciate thee...
(I think LaTeX generates much nicer documents than either OO Writer or Word because it balances line (and page, but that's much less important) breaks better and does proper spacing after periods.)
May I recommend that you look at LaTeX Beamer? It produces some very nice electronic slides (among the nicest I've seen I think), and can be nicely incorporated with text for handouts and stuff.
I know you said somewhere that you like white boards, but if you need or want to make an electronic presentation it's a viable option.
* I think the mountain range casing makes the name look absolutely stupid. I also think the ".org" on the end of OOo makes IT look really stupid.
However, I have never had a problem using MS Office files created by Open Office in either of the two programs
I have, once. There was a PPT presentation created in OpenOffice (1.1.4) that crashed PowerPoint. Which tells me that both OpenOffice and PowerPoint have a bug related to that file, because OO very probably (though I guess not certainly) generated an invalid file and PowerPoint shouldn't crash even on an invalid file.
But generally they are pretty good.
I'll agree on calc. Excel has two absolutely braindead UI aspects. I don't know what the designers are on over in Redmond, but they must be smoking something pretty strong. They are:
...) and also messes up formatting because deleted text takes up space, which is probably not what you want. At least based on my use of that feature.)
1. If you select a range of cells, copy it, and make another edit, Excel loses what you copied.
I ran into this a TON when I was recording timesheets for a group project for a college class. The times were all kept in a single sheet, sorted by person. As the semester went on and I had to update them, the other members would email me their times as a separate Excel file and I would copy and paste into the master sheet. This, of course, required shifting down everyone's entries by however many lines were in the person's I was adding. Which means I had to open their timesheet, see the number of lines, change to the master timesheet, move down the cells, change back to the person's sheet, copy, change back to the master sheet, and paste. And if I didn't shift the other cells far enough down, I'd have to shift again, change again, copy again, change again, then paste. (There's probably a better way to do this, having it shift automatically, but I don't know it.)
OTOH, Excel's formula editor is nicer. OO color codes cell ranges with the formula as it's displayed in the cell, but Excel also color codes it in the edit box where you type in the formula. (Also, I thought that typing something like '=sum(A1:A3' then pressing enter would make it complain about an invalid entry, but I just tried it and it autoclosed the parens. Maybe it was like that in pre-2.0 OO?)
2. Excel operates in what I call a fake-non-MDI mode. In that it pretends it's not an MDI application, but it actually is. Each document you open shows up in a separate taskbar icon. And yet there's only one window. And if you close that window it closes all your documents. Congratulations MS, you found a way to make MDI even more frustrating. (In fact, I *never* found MDI frustrating before Excel. And yet I can't tell you how many times I've closed all my documents by mistake.)
For these two reasons I've stopped using Excel.
However, I cannot agree that the other applications in OO are up to MS Office's standards, at least in XP. And given that I think everything I've done in Word XP I've done in Word 2K, I think it applies there as well. See another of my posts for the gripes I have with Writer that I could think of at the time.
Finally, at least Writer 2.0 has track changes. I'm almost positive 1.1 has it too because I'm almost positive I've used it, though I don't have it installed anymore so can't be for sure. But in Writer 2, it's under edit -> changes -> record. (However, as I mention in that post, it's substantially inferior to Word's offering. Deleted text is shown strikeout (like, I think, Word 2K) instead of in an external comment (like in XP+). This both is uglier (harder to read,
Um, Word has styles too. (Format -> Styles and Formatting in XP.) You want to enlighten me as to how OO's are better?
For instance...
The quality of the track changes (edit -> changes -> record, which to me doesn't make much sense, though how much is due to it being in a poor location "objectively" and how much is it not being tools -> track changes I don't know; I do think that the latter makes more sense though) is around that of, oh, Word 2000. At the latest. XP adds a substantial (IMO) improvement.
The header/footer being in View makes sense if you look at the perspective of using it in the Normal view mode. Then the headers and footers aren't visible, and view -> header and footer makes them visible. (To edit them, it takes you to page view mode. When done, it returns you to normal mode.) It being in the insert menu doesn't make sense, because it also edits existing ones.
Speaking of the normal mode, I often prefer that to the page layout. OO doesn't have it.
Speaking of the page layout mode, Word's is better; you can collapse the top and bottom margins. (Which adds another time when you'd need to go to the menu for the header/footer.)
Oh, and this is somewhat superficial, but I'm somewhat picky when it comes to applications using native widgets. I really like native widgets. OO doesn't use native widgets. They are a good imitation, but not the same thing.
By contrast, there's only one thing that I think makes more sense in OpenOffice, which is page layout in the format menu instead of the file menu. However, even that only makes sense from the view of the application itself, and the fact that it violates the conventions of *every other application I can think of that has page setup* sorta outweighs that.
This isn't nearly the same though. Now you have two different ways to raise a window; for the Gimp you use your keyboard shortcut, but for everything else you do it normally.
It's a workaround, not a solution.
(Easier I think is just to dedicate a virtual desktop entirely to the Gimp; this is what I do under Linux)
I agree that an option would be nice, and that a UI like the current Gimp might work better if you have multiple monitors. (I suspect I'd still want the raising behavior, based on how I use the Gimp under Linux with multiple virtual desktops, but the prefence would be much less.) However, I think that for one-window, one-virtual-desktop editing, the current interface sucks. And sucks to the point I don't use it.
(Under Linux I dedicate an entire virtual desktop to the Gimp, that way I don't encounter the problem.)
(And if anynoe happens to know of a decent Windows virtual desktop manager I'd be interested to hear about that too. I've tried MS's VDM or whatever they call it and found it slow and not nearly as featured as a decent one, so I got rid of it.)
It will also raise all the windows when you choose one, probably. I have the Gimp installed under Windows, and even though I'm happy with most of the Gimp (even most of the UI!) I almost never use it when I'm in Windows. The reason is that I find it very annoying that if I have another application open, switch to that, and switch back to the Gimp (not minimizing anything, just changing z-orders) I have to go through and manually raise the window with all the tools, the document(s) I'm working on, and the two tool option windows I use. IMO, raising one of them should raise them ALL, and I have yet to find a way to do that. If you know of one (Windows OR Linux), please tell me.
load it up with porn, gigs of it. you don't even have to look at it. the point is to have something, anything, lots of it, that other people want to download and that you won't get in trouble for sharing (heh, sorry porn makers)
Hate to break it to you, but that porn is just as copyrighted as the music. I don't think I've ever heard of someone suing over sharing porn, but nevertheless you should be aware that from a purely legal standpoint, what you're doing is no more right than if you were sharing the latest song or movie. It's just that you're far less likely to be called on it.
That woman lost her case, and got a fraction of what she was asking for in "damages".
Um, no. While the final terms were sealed, the latest public ruling was over $500K paid to her. It's safe to assume that the sealed settlement was at least most of that. Even if her lawyer took most (unlikely, I think 40% is fairly standard if the case was pro bono) she still made out quite nicely finanically.
(And all this ignores the fact that she at least originally only wanted medical expenses, and only refused because McDonald's didn't give. She didn't ask for suffering or punative damages until the suit.)
Even back when AOL was the biggest ISP, many people I knew picked companies like Juno because they charged half as much and ran just as quick. ...All they did was package in an IM.
This isn't true. In fairness to them, a lot of the AOL-only stuff was quite useful. It's probably a lot less so now that the WWW is big (I haven't had AOL for years), but back with AOL 2.5 when they first offered an internet connection (or at least a browser), some of their stuff was invaluable. There were libraries of example code to download, etc.
It's also possible that I wasn't able to find them online at the time, but I at least found AOL to be very useful.
The studios don't want this because then you just hook up a recorder to the output of the dongle. Sure, it won't be quite the quality of if you were to get the clear content, but it'll be as good as what you would see on the TV.
The idea of HDCP in the first place is to make it nearly impossible to put a recorder anywhere behind the actual screen.
Napster.
5.1 sound with my sound card (onboard realtek alc650), at least as far as I've been able to tell.
TV with the new ATI TV Wonder Elite tuner.
Perhaps the Sims 2, I haven't tried it.
I want to change to Linux as my primary OS, and these are the gripes I have. Everything else works with essentially no more work than Windows...
The first one I may get around with VMWare which I really need anyway, the second by buying a new sound card (which I plan to anyway), and the third one with a Hauppauge (this is disappointing though, the quality of the Theatre 550 is, IMO, quite a bit better than Hauppauge's; I assume this won't work throguh VMWare), and the 4th by booting to Windows for the infrequent times I'll want to use it.
Can accidentally close on pedestrians
Also a problem with revolving doors. In fact, another poster pointed to this case in which a toddler was killed by a revolving door. (It's an automatic revolving door.)
There's a Douglas Adams article in A Salmon of Doubt talking about a trip to some resort on the Great Barrier Reef (I think). The resort had people stationed at all of the doors to open it for visitors.
The reason? It was a popular Japanese tourist destination, and they were often so used to automatic doors that they would sometimes stand in front of them for a minute or two waiting for them to open automatically.
(Or so says Douglas Adams)
Um, you're missing the point. The text of the paper has been available for some time. They didn't discover a NEW paper, just the original of one of them.
And as such, an image of what Einstien actually wrote is the ONLY way to present it in a way that hasn't been available before.
I'm not criticizing the overall message (except that I think the proper response is a complete replacement), but I do have a couple comments:
or, in an unfortunate, but no longer life-threatening event, crash
It'd still be life-threatening to people on the ground. Not much, and not any more than a manned entry, but there would be a tiny risk.
I can't recall a SINGLE EVENT where a capsule has burned up and people have died in reentry
The Soviets had a capsule decompression on reentry. Not burning up, but the three cosmonauts did die.
You need to freshen up on the differences between civil and criminal law.