Sorry, but you clearly haven't used the latest versions of Word. Whenever Word autocorrects, there is a little tab that pops up that you can click and tell it to undo the change, or to never make that correction again. Furthermore, the options are very straightforward. Simply go into the autocorrect options (Tools:Autocorrect Options) and turn off anything you don't want. It shouldn't take you more than 2 minutes.
Word always gets in your way and leads to more layout and less content that you originally intended.
I'm not sure what this means. When I type into Word, I type the content I want to type. Word doesn't change the content coming out of my brain. Word does what I intend, not the other way around.
Oh we can fight back and forth all day about default options. However, the end result is this: Large, complex programs (most programs nowadays) have many options. It is extremely rare that the program will come with the default options exactly how you want them. Changing the options in Office/Firefox/Adobe is the first thing I do after installing them. There is no way to define the 'casual' word processor user, or identify what they want. Your complaint is like buying a new car and then saying that the radio presets aren't stations you listen to, so the car must be bad.
What does that say about Word? Absolutely nothing. Why blame the product when it is the user who is making the errors? Some of us do use the higher functions of Word, and they do work well.
Not really. I'm not sure what GP was referencing, but there is no wrong way to install Word. The damn thing installs itself, all you have to do is click a few buttons.
However, it does seem from the comments (didnt RTFA) that Dvorak's installation was corrupted somehow.
Care to go into some of those show-stoppers? We use Word here for many documents each day, and very rarely have any problems, and they never rise to the level of 'show-stopper'. Why don't you earn that informative mod and provide us with some actual information.
Update all fields on the page and you still have to update the fields on the headers and footers separately.
I have used Word to write construction specifications. This is basically a document that tells a contractor how everything will be installed, removed, etc. A spec set is ~500-1000 pages and each spec section is a separate file. It's common to receive spec sections from clients and/or subcontractors, so putting it all in one file is not workable.
There are four variables: Spec Number, Name, Date, and Contract. The Number and Name are specified in fields at the top of the document. The Date and Contract are specified in a single document for the whole spec set. All of the labelling/titling can be changed on the spec from those fields. The Table of Contents is designed so that it goes through and pulls all the info from the fields in the spec sections to create the TOC, so if you change a spec number or name, you only have to change it once, and the whole spec set is updated. I never had a problem where fields did not update, but I use Update all, and also use 'Update fields when printing'.
BTW, how is it braindead? True, there's no dialog box or other interface to make it simple, but the process isn't too hard: { SET labelname "Label Text" } and then ref it using { REF labelname }. I use "\* MERGEFORMAT" as my switches. I find it's easier to type fields myself than using the insert field dialog. Ctrl+F9 inserts a blank field. The only thing that's a little annoying is referencing other files. For that, you need to use { INCLUDETEXT filename refname }. However, backslash is the escape character in fields, and since we use the network for all files here, it ends up looking like { INCLUDETEXT "\\\\server\\directory\\etc\\blah"}, except much longer.
I do have a coding background, so maybe that is why it doesn't seem so hard to me. Compared to the way Word does most other things, it does seem a little arcane.
If you work the way word wants you to it's fantastic, but work another way and it will struggle with you all the way.
100% agree. Sometimes it's hard to figure out exactly how Word wants you to do it, though, which is part of the problem.
I think this is one of the problems for power users of other word processors - you're continually fighting with word because you're used to doing things a certain way (a good eg is the wordperfect "reveal codes" - use word "properly" and you don't need it, but try and use word like wordperfect and it will make your life a misery)
I think the problem is that many people see a word processor as a simple program, when it is not. For example, would a drafter open Microstation and start working in it as if it was AutoCAD? Would a layout editor open Quark and start working in it as if it was InDesign? Would someone open Emacs and start using it like vi?
The cost of simple disposal is almost always less than the cost of recycling, assuming some general things (no massive site contamination or other hazwaste, etc.). However, it's interesting that your brother is involved with such a project. Where is he located? Here on the east coast, we've generally run out of room for trash, but we are shipping it west, rather than trying to make more space here. Moving a river for a waste area seems even more backwards. I'm surprised any environmental official approved that project.
On the other hand, a lot of desiccants are recycleable. You can pop them into an oven to dry the material out.
You're not thinking about recycling fully. While getting a virgin or near-virgin material back is a good goal, many other factors must be considered. Such as: energy required to recycle back to near-virgin material, energy required to create virgin material (from the ground, other materials, however it is acquired), amount of virgin material (or constituents) available, etc.
While dessicant may be easily recycled, it may not be worth it. Burning a bunch of oil, coal and gas to dry it out may harm the environment more than just tossing it in a landfill. However, if the raw materials to make dessicant are non-sustainable/limited, then recycling becomes beneficial again.
a vending machine by extention would cost less to operate because it rarely has its door fully opened.
True, but not all vending machines are located in a climate controlled environment. Outdoor machines in the summer months run almost constantly so that the little LED screen can say "Cool! 38(deg)F".
Yeah, the absolutely stupidest way to shop that I've ever heard of.
Hey, I know, let's go to the place that answers me first, not the one with the best price, or return policy, or service (NB: service is not answering quickly. while prompt replies are nice, they mean nothing if the vendor doesn't help you). If you're looking for a fast quote, it's probably not going to be an accurate quote, because the sales rep will not have enough time or data to accurately gauge your needs (this assumes you're buying something serious, not some clothes or something).
If someone is quote shopping, then they don't really want your product. They're in the market for your product, but they don't know which they want. IMO, anyone who's using response time as a factor in choosing a specific vendor is a bad consumer (NB: again, customer service and response time are related, but not the same). If you're interested enough to email someone for a quote, you should be interested enough to follow up with a call if you don't get an answer. The vendor might not have someone sitting at a desk 24 hours a day waiting for email to come in, but they may sell the best product that you're in the market for. With your method, you would rather choose an inferior vendor than put forth a bit of effort to find the best vendor.
Fedex sig required is a joke, from my experience. I've had sig required items left on the porch, which I don't mind because I'm never around to sign. It's funny to go to the tracking records.. it turns out the front door can sign for packages.
When people are interested in buying things, they may only send one email.
Assuming you give them multiple avenues to contact you, then they simply aren't that interested if they only send one email and drop it after that. Now, I can certainly see trying to make the email system as hardened as possible to prevent any missed email, but the idea that youre going to lose out on some huge sale because of one email being dropped is silly. The grandparent is correct. If you're at all serious in your business, important email is always followed up with a call or some other means.
And ask any CEO--sales are the most important thing to a company.
Close, but profit is the most important thing. You can sell a billion units, but if you're selling them at a loss, I don't think the CEO will be too pleased.
While I agree that electronics shouldn't completely take over sport, there is certainly a strong argument for them. When the outcome of sport is spoiled by a judging or scoring error, it is very disappointing and casts a shadow on the whole event. Look at the men's gymnastics, where the South Korean gymnast should have won, but lost due to an unfortunate scoring error (though I believe he will eventually be named the winner if this hasn't happened already).
The question is where do we draw the line. Electric eyes are used in tennis, where serves are over 100 mph. However, in baseball, where speeds and ball sizes are similar, and there are no lines as reference, the electric eye system was roundly rejected for strike zone determination. Some of this opposition was simply the umpires not wanting to be made obsolete. Some of it came from a nostalgia/random aspect similar to your post.
IMO, the fact that England Germany 1966 is still discussed because of a bad call is a BAD thing. Sport should be decided by the athleticism of the participants, not a 3rd party, and especially not an erroneous 3rd party. With all the cameras at games now, just about every bad call is caught on tape. You watch highlight reels now and there are the highlights of the athletes, and then the clips of the bad calls, with the announcer saying, "Now, check this one out in the 4th inning... it would have put them up by 5, but, it was called back on a bad call."
My bad call moment is US football, 2002 NFC Wild Card game, NY Giants vs. SF 49ers. On the final play of the game, the Giants were attempting a field goal for the win. The FG snap was bungled, and the Giants attempted a pass in desperation. The Giants were called for an ineligible man downfield (for those not familiar with american football: The linemen/blockers cannot go for passes unless explicitly announced as eligible). There was also defensive pass interference on the play, which should have led to the play being redone (offsetting penalties). But, because the pass interference was on what was believed to be an ineligible receiver, it was not considered a penalty, and the game was ended. However, the referees made an error. The receiver interfered with was explicitly made eligible. The Giants should have had another try at the win, but never got it. To me, that's a disgusting way to end a game.
Now, I don't know how computers would have really helped in that situation, without a total computerized tracking system, etc., which isn't realistic. But, there are certainly areas where I think electronics should be used instead of human eyes. In the end, while I agree it's a large change to the game, I think sensors should be used in baseball. While strike zone variations can create interesting situations, a uniform standard is fairer and results in pitchers relying only on their accuracy, not the catcher moving his glove after the ball is caught, not the umpire's parallax. The cameras used in today's games illustrate the error of the umpire many times per game.
It's clear from instant replay and electronics use in US football and hockey that technology isn't going to make everything perfect. But it makes things better and fairer, and that's a good thing and should always be a goal of the sanctioning bodies, not protecting some overpaid umpire's job, or some sportwriter's notion of the "good ol' days".
Also, what system was used in (world) football? Was it to determine out of bounds, or the ball crossing the goal line?
Most people don't know they exist (I didn't). Also, while I did not look at pricing information on those sites, it is reasonable to consider the volume discount that a run of 100,000 prints would bring vs. a run of 1 print.
Yeah I cropped a bit, kept the original aspect ratio, and matched my desktop background color to the water in the picture (~25/27/70 rgb) so that it blended in. A monday morning well spent.
I don't care about any articles. Federal law does not require that convicted felons be removed from voting lists. That is decided on a state-by-state basis. Most states allow felons to vote.
Slashdot Mirror
I was merely pointing out, using an interesting, cutting edge, rhetorical style
How's that working out for you?
Silly First Amendment coming back to bite us when in the hands of a megacorp again... :)
Close, but it's the silly court precedent that treats corporations the same as people that bites us in the ass every day.
Sorry, but you clearly haven't used the latest versions of Word. Whenever Word autocorrects, there is a little tab that pops up that you can click and tell it to undo the change, or to never make that correction again. Furthermore, the options are very straightforward. Simply go into the autocorrect options (Tools:Autocorrect Options) and turn off anything you don't want. It shouldn't take you more than 2 minutes.
Word always gets in your way and leads to more layout and less content that you originally intended.
I'm not sure what this means. When I type into Word, I type the content I want to type. Word doesn't change the content coming out of my brain. Word does what I intend, not the other way around.
Oh we can fight back and forth all day about default options. However, the end result is this: Large, complex programs (most programs nowadays) have many options. It is extremely rare that the program will come with the default options exactly how you want them. Changing the options in Office/Firefox/Adobe is the first thing I do after installing them. There is no way to define the 'casual' word processor user, or identify what they want. Your complaint is like buying a new car and then saying that the radio presets aren't stations you listen to, so the car must be bad.
What does that say about Word? Absolutely nothing. Why blame the product when it is the user who is making the errors? Some of us do use the higher functions of Word, and they do work well.
Not really. I'm not sure what GP was referencing, but there is no wrong way to install Word. The damn thing installs itself, all you have to do is click a few buttons.
However, it does seem from the comments (didnt RTFA) that Dvorak's installation was corrupted somehow.
Care to go into some of those show-stoppers? We use Word here for many documents each day, and very rarely have any problems, and they never rise to the level of 'show-stopper'. Why don't you earn that informative mod and provide us with some actual information.
Update all fields on the page and you still have to update the fields on the headers and footers separately.
I have used Word to write construction specifications. This is basically a document that tells a contractor how everything will be installed, removed, etc. A spec set is ~500-1000 pages and each spec section is a separate file. It's common to receive spec sections from clients and/or subcontractors, so putting it all in one file is not workable.
There are four variables: Spec Number, Name, Date, and Contract. The Number and Name are specified in fields at the top of the document. The Date and Contract are specified in a single document for the whole spec set. All of the labelling/titling can be changed on the spec from those fields. The Table of Contents is designed so that it goes through and pulls all the info from the fields in the spec sections to create the TOC, so if you change a spec number or name, you only have to change it once, and the whole spec set is updated. I never had a problem where fields did not update, but I use Update all, and also use 'Update fields when printing'.
BTW, how is it braindead? True, there's no dialog box or other interface to make it simple, but the process isn't too hard: { SET labelname "Label Text" } and then ref it using { REF labelname }. I use "\* MERGEFORMAT" as my switches. I find it's easier to type fields myself than using the insert field dialog. Ctrl+F9 inserts a blank field. The only thing that's a little annoying is referencing other files. For that, you need to use { INCLUDETEXT filename refname }. However, backslash is the escape character in fields, and since we use the network for all files here, it ends up looking like { INCLUDETEXT "\\\\server\\directory\\etc\\blah"}, except much longer.
I do have a coding background, so maybe that is why it doesn't seem so hard to me. Compared to the way Word does most other things, it does seem a little arcane.
If you work the way word wants you to it's fantastic, but work another way and it will struggle with you all the way.
100% agree. Sometimes it's hard to figure out exactly how Word wants you to do it, though, which is part of the problem.
I think this is one of the problems for power users of other word processors - you're continually fighting with word because you're used to doing things a certain way (a good eg is the wordperfect "reveal codes" - use word "properly" and you don't need it, but try and use word like wordperfect and it will make your life a misery)
I think the problem is that many people see a word processor as a simple program, when it is not. For example, would a drafter open Microstation and start working in it as if it was AutoCAD? Would a layout editor open Quark and start working in it as if it was InDesign? Would someone open Emacs and start using it like vi?
Word processing on Word is still GUI based and heavily depends on use of mice.
What do you mean, "still"? Is there a new way of word processing or interacting with the computer that I don't know about yet?
Web browsing is still GUI based and heavily depends on use of mice. So what?
The cost of simple disposal is almost always less than the cost of recycling, assuming some general things (no massive site contamination or other hazwaste, etc.). However, it's interesting that your brother is involved with such a project. Where is he located? Here on the east coast, we've generally run out of room for trash, but we are shipping it west, rather than trying to make more space here. Moving a river for a waste area seems even more backwards. I'm surprised any environmental official approved that project.
I choose the false dichotomy, or strawman, or whichever error you made. Thanks for playing.
On the other hand, a lot of desiccants are recycleable. You can pop them into an oven to dry the material out.
You're not thinking about recycling fully. While getting a virgin or near-virgin material back is a good goal, many other factors must be considered. Such as: energy required to recycle back to near-virgin material, energy required to create virgin material (from the ground, other materials, however it is acquired), amount of virgin material (or constituents) available, etc.
While dessicant may be easily recycled, it may not be worth it. Burning a bunch of oil, coal and gas to dry it out may harm the environment more than just tossing it in a landfill. However, if the raw materials to make dessicant are non-sustainable/limited, then recycling becomes beneficial again.
a vending machine by extention would cost less to operate because it rarely has its door fully opened.
True, but not all vending machines are located in a climate controlled environment. Outdoor machines in the summer months run almost constantly so that the little LED screen can say "Cool! 38(deg)F".
Yeah, the absolutely stupidest way to shop that I've ever heard of.
Hey, I know, let's go to the place that answers me first, not the one with the best price, or return policy, or service (NB: service is not answering quickly. while prompt replies are nice, they mean nothing if the vendor doesn't help you). If you're looking for a fast quote, it's probably not going to be an accurate quote, because the sales rep will not have enough time or data to accurately gauge your needs (this assumes you're buying something serious, not some clothes or something).
If someone is quote shopping, then they don't really want your product. They're in the market for your product, but they don't know which they want. IMO, anyone who's using response time as a factor in choosing a specific vendor is a bad consumer (NB: again, customer service and response time are related, but not the same). If you're interested enough to email someone for a quote, you should be interested enough to follow up with a call if you don't get an answer. The vendor might not have someone sitting at a desk 24 hours a day waiting for email to come in, but they may sell the best product that you're in the market for. With your method, you would rather choose an inferior vendor than put forth a bit of effort to find the best vendor.
Fedex sig required is a joke, from my experience. I've had sig required items left on the porch, which I don't mind because I'm never around to sign. It's funny to go to the tracking records.. it turns out the front door can sign for packages.
When people are interested in buying things, they may only send one email.
Assuming you give them multiple avenues to contact you, then they simply aren't that interested if they only send one email and drop it after that. Now, I can certainly see trying to make the email system as hardened as possible to prevent any missed email, but the idea that youre going to lose out on some huge sale because of one email being dropped is silly. The grandparent is correct. If you're at all serious in your business, important email is always followed up with a call or some other means.
And ask any CEO--sales are the most important thing to a company.
Close, but profit is the most important thing. You can sell a billion units, but if you're selling them at a loss, I don't think the CEO will be too pleased.
While I agree that electronics shouldn't completely take over sport, there is certainly a strong argument for them. When the outcome of sport is spoiled by a judging or scoring error, it is very disappointing and casts a shadow on the whole event. Look at the men's gymnastics, where the South Korean gymnast should have won, but lost due to an unfortunate scoring error (though I believe he will eventually be named the winner if this hasn't happened already).
The question is where do we draw the line. Electric eyes are used in tennis, where serves are over 100 mph. However, in baseball, where speeds and ball sizes are similar, and there are no lines as reference, the electric eye system was roundly rejected for strike zone determination. Some of this opposition was simply the umpires not wanting to be made obsolete. Some of it came from a nostalgia/random aspect similar to your post.
IMO, the fact that England Germany 1966 is still discussed because of a bad call is a BAD thing. Sport should be decided by the athleticism of the participants, not a 3rd party, and especially not an erroneous 3rd party. With all the cameras at games now, just about every bad call is caught on tape. You watch highlight reels now and there are the highlights of the athletes, and then the clips of the bad calls, with the announcer saying, "Now, check this one out in the 4th inning... it would have put them up by 5, but, it was called back on a bad call."
My bad call moment is US football, 2002 NFC Wild Card game, NY Giants vs. SF 49ers. On the final play of the game, the Giants were attempting a field goal for the win. The FG snap was bungled, and the Giants attempted a pass in desperation. The Giants were called for an ineligible man downfield (for those not familiar with american football: The linemen/blockers cannot go for passes unless explicitly announced as eligible). There was also defensive pass interference on the play, which should have led to the play being redone (offsetting penalties). But, because the pass interference was on what was believed to be an ineligible receiver, it was not considered a penalty, and the game was ended. However, the referees made an error. The receiver interfered with was explicitly made eligible. The Giants should have had another try at the win, but never got it. To me, that's a disgusting way to end a game.
Now, I don't know how computers would have really helped in that situation, without a total computerized tracking system, etc., which isn't realistic. But, there are certainly areas where I think electronics should be used instead of human eyes. In the end, while I agree it's a large change to the game, I think sensors should be used in baseball. While strike zone variations can create interesting situations, a uniform standard is fairer and results in pitchers relying only on their accuracy, not the catcher moving his glove after the ball is caught, not the umpire's parallax. The cameras used in today's games illustrate the error of the umpire many times per game.
It's clear from instant replay and electronics use in US football and hockey that technology isn't going to make everything perfect. But it makes things better and fairer, and that's a good thing and should always be a goal of the sanctioning bodies, not protecting some overpaid umpire's job, or some sportwriter's notion of the "good ol' days".
Also, what system was used in (world) football? Was it to determine out of bounds, or the ball crossing the goal line?
Most people don't know they exist (I didn't). Also, while I did not look at pricing information on those sites, it is reasonable to consider the volume discount that a run of 100,000 prints would bring vs. a run of 1 print.
Gee, I dunno, maybe because most of the public doesn't have access to a high quality large format printer?
Yeah I cropped a bit, kept the original aspect ratio, and matched my desktop background color to the water in the picture (~25/27/70 rgb) so that it blended in. A monday morning well spent.
What insight does this comment provide? "I'm cooler than you?" Not all of us have the time to go to every web site, every day.
If by old way you mean the ancient greeks.. well they had huge sacrifices to Zeus and other gods at the games. Not exactly cheap or efficient.
I don't care about any articles. Federal law does not require that convicted felons be removed from voting lists. That is decided on a state-by-state basis. Most states allow felons to vote.