Office Outlook stores it's location for it's local cache of emails for exchange with an fully specified absolute path. If your oganization happens to have roaming profiles, and they bug on a computer so someones profile gets stored as username.domain instead of just username, rather than making a new local cache it bugs out and requires someone to manually reconfigured the exchange connection. It should be able to regenerate it's cache location if it doesn't have access to the previous expected location.
There are several places in office where it should allow relative paths or variable based paths, and doesn't. The above also wouldn't be a problem if it used %userprofile%. Access should allow linked databases to use relative paths, so that you can move a front end/back end pair around wherever you like without a custom script to check folder locations or requiring you to manually update the links. This is more of an obvious missed feature than a bug per se.
I should note that I still disapprove of the substitution of $ for S in MS.
What did you see as pro-fascism in the books? I've only read them once and didn't get that impression at all. I'm leery of accepting that interpretation because I've also heard it falsely claimed about Heinlein.
It's been a while, but I'm not sure that it was a full retcon. I seem to recall at least some strong hints of it in book 6 or 7 when his history with Grindenwald is discussed.
"I don't like him" is not the same as "lower than average". Despite what his opponents claim, bush was not particularly stupid. He had basic premises in his worldview that some people found intolerable. And those people seemed to think that "If I believed X (in addition to my other priors), I would do Y. Bush didn't Do Y, therefore he doesn't actually believe X", which of course doesn't work because of those other priors.
Of course, those same people actually seem to believe that he really said that the constitution was just a goddamned piece of paper.
As far as I can tell, the article and post are incorrect when they state "The democratic process relies on the assumption that citizens can recognize the best political candidate, or best policy idea." They are begging the question of what the justifications for democracy actually are (please, no pendants picking apart this use of the phrase). The article looks like it was more reserved, and started with the goal of finding the best possible leader without claiming that was the purpose of democracy in general.
I would contend that the strength of democracy is avoiding truly terrible candidates. The ones who write like the developer of the time cube. A tyranny of the majority is superior to the tyranny of one.
The only way to declare a constitutional amendment null and void is if it didn't follow procedures to be put into law. If an amendment conflicts, the latest provisions override.
We like to tell the urban dwellers who have never even seen a cow things like that, just to see how gullible they really are. Due to the nature of mass media, rural dwellers are far more familiar with urban living than the reverse.
What have you been smoking? Montana has been thinly populated since the white population first started settling here. As it is, most people in Montana live in cities just like everywhere else, just smaller ones.
The discussion was mass transit for the US as a whole. I am not complaining about living in Montana, only suggesting that trying to add mass transit here would cost a lot than $8 per gallon would actually provide. Otoh, mass transit in major urban areas would probably be workable, but don't expect me to pay for it. You urban states can feel free to spend all the money you want to provide it.
The norway comparison is interesting, but without knowing more about the actual layout of populace, it's hard to say if it's analogous or not. Although a limited mass transit between major hubs might be doable, it would almost certainly not be cost effective. If Norway has a population density that's more lumpy, it would probably work better there than here.
I would argue that that election was Kerry's race to lose, and he campaigned hard to do so. I voted for neither, but even with the spike they were still low by historical standards so it's not particularly surprising that they didn't dominate the results even if there was a significant recent spike in gas prices.
It did not start in 2006. R's did not control congress from 2001-2003 (It was a tie until Jeffords switched parties in 2001). Control of the house is interesting, because the republicans never had as much power as D's did in 2007, but a few votes difference doesn't really mean that much.
Can you definitively rule out the effects of policies from every year that D's had control of a larger portion of government over the last 30 years? Their are real issues with pinning in various deregulation, including the fact that overall regulation of the financial sector increased even as various specific rules were relaxed.
Be careful assigning blame to glass-steagall in particular. The actual effect of that rule was arguably to soften the blow of the crash rather than to cause it. The most diverse banks were the least affected.
At what point has a major point of tea party rallies been shoving religion down your throat? Individual supporters, yes. Because the tea party is a cross section of people who care about government size, it includes both social conservatives and social liberals.
The economic crash was not provably due to bush or rep policies, wishful thinking aside. Proving the effects of policies is sufficiently hard that I don't think it can be provably placed at any party's feet.
I can choose a different insurance company, or forgo it entirely, but Obamacare directly penalizes me for not having it and I can't switch governments.
He's a libertarian and pro-states rights. He happens to be pro-life, so thinks state governments should have laws against abortion (because it's murder), but nonetheless things the federal government shouldn't be involved.
Obama is not a right winger. He's left wing authoritarian. Before you dig up the study on right wing authoritarianism, note that the author did NOT use right and left wing in their normal political sense.
I somewhat agree with your concerns about social conservatives. They don't actually seem to control the republican party, and definitely do not control tea partiers. Since overall on those issues government is getting better, not worse, while on the issues I have with democrats the government is getting worse, I tend to vote republican unless there's an actual libertarian option. I do find that displaying a cross or celebrating christmas for government agencies is much, much, less intrusive into my life than decreeing that I'm not allowed to cary a gun, or that I have to agree to a virtual strip search to fly on a plane, or that insurance companies aren't allowed to offer low cost high deductible personal medical insurance plans, or that employers can't decide who to hire/fire based entirely on an objective merit, etc.
So, is "journalist" a de-facto title of nobility then? Seems that there might be a constitutional issue with that. Absolute immunity for police and prosecutors should also be questioned on those grounds, but I don't see that happening any time soon.
Slashdot Mirror
Office Outlook stores it's location for it's local cache of emails for exchange with an fully specified absolute path. If your oganization happens to have roaming profiles, and they bug on a computer so someones profile gets stored as username.domain instead of just username, rather than making a new local cache it bugs out and requires someone to manually reconfigured the exchange connection. It should be able to regenerate it's cache location if it doesn't have access to the previous expected location.
There are several places in office where it should allow relative paths or variable based paths, and doesn't. The above also wouldn't be a problem if it used %userprofile%. Access should allow linked databases to use relative paths, so that you can move a front end/back end pair around wherever you like without a custom script to check folder locations or requiring you to manually update the links. This is more of an obvious missed feature than a bug per se.
I should note that I still disapprove of the substitution of $ for S in MS.
What did you see as pro-fascism in the books? I've only read them once and didn't get that impression at all. I'm leery of accepting that interpretation because I've also heard it falsely claimed about Heinlein.
It's been a while, but I'm not sure that it was a full retcon. I seem to recall at least some strong hints of it in book 6 or 7 when his history with Grindenwald is discussed.
"I don't like him" is not the same as "lower than average". Despite what his opponents claim, bush was not particularly stupid. He had basic premises in his worldview that some people found intolerable. And those people seemed to think that "If I believed X (in addition to my other priors), I would do Y. Bush didn't Do Y, therefore he doesn't actually believe X", which of course doesn't work because of those other priors.
Of course, those same people actually seem to believe that he really said that the constitution was just a goddamned piece of paper.
As far as I can tell, the article and post are incorrect when they state "The democratic process relies on the assumption that citizens can recognize the best political candidate, or best policy idea." They are begging the question of what the justifications for democracy actually are (please, no pendants picking apart this use of the phrase). The article looks like it was more reserved, and started with the goal of finding the best possible leader without claiming that was the purpose of democracy in general.
I would contend that the strength of democracy is avoiding truly terrible candidates. The ones who write like the developer of the time cube. A tyranny of the majority is superior to the tyranny of one.
The only way to declare a constitutional amendment null and void is if it didn't follow procedures to be put into law. If an amendment conflicts, the latest provisions override.
We like to tell the urban dwellers who have never even seen a cow things like that, just to see how gullible they really are. Due to the nature of mass media, rural dwellers are far more familiar with urban living than the reverse.
What have you been smoking? Montana has been thinly populated since the white population first started settling here. As it is, most people in Montana live in cities just like everywhere else, just smaller ones.
The discussion was mass transit for the US as a whole. I am not complaining about living in Montana, only suggesting that trying to add mass transit here would cost a lot than $8 per gallon would actually provide. Otoh, mass transit in major urban areas would probably be workable, but don't expect me to pay for it. You urban states can feel free to spend all the money you want to provide it.
The norway comparison is interesting, but without knowing more about the actual layout of populace, it's hard to say if it's analogous or not. Although a limited mass transit between major hubs might be doable, it would almost certainly not be cost effective. If Norway has a population density that's more lumpy, it would probably work better there than here.
I would argue that that election was Kerry's race to lose, and he campaigned hard to do so. I voted for neither, but even with the spike they were still low by historical standards so it's not particularly surprising that they didn't dominate the results even if there was a significant recent spike in gas prices.
The Iraq invasion increased the cost of oil. It has in no way lowered gas prices.
Did you realize that during his first term, gas prices were still low by historical standards?
As a Montana resident, I think it would cost a lot more than that to get good mass transit here.
The TSA rollout of full body scanners came in 2010.
It did not start in 2006. R's did not control congress from 2001-2003 (It was a tie until Jeffords switched parties in 2001). Control of the house is interesting, because the republicans never had as much power as D's did in 2007, but a few votes difference doesn't really mean that much.
Can you definitively rule out the effects of policies from every year that D's had control of a larger portion of government over the last 30 years? Their are real issues with pinning in various deregulation, including the fact that overall regulation of the financial sector increased even as various specific rules were relaxed.
Be careful assigning blame to glass-steagall in particular. The actual effect of that rule was arguably to soften the blow of the crash rather than to cause it. The most diverse banks were the least affected.
Tax breaks for employers primarily.
At what point has a major point of tea party rallies been shoving religion down your throat? Individual supporters, yes. Because the tea party is a cross section of people who care about government size, it includes both social conservatives and social liberals.
The economic crash was not provably due to bush or rep policies, wishful thinking aside. Proving the effects of policies is sufficiently hard that I don't think it can be provably placed at any party's feet.
It paid back one loan with money from different government loans that it got at lower interest rate.
I can choose a different insurance company, or forgo it entirely, but Obamacare directly penalizes me for not having it and I can't switch governments.
He's a libertarian and pro-states rights. He happens to be pro-life, so thinks state governments should have laws against abortion (because it's murder), but nonetheless things the federal government shouldn't be involved.
Obama is not a right winger. He's left wing authoritarian. Before you dig up the study on right wing authoritarianism, note that the author did NOT use right and left wing in their normal political sense.
Except that Hitler was appointed, not voted, into power initially.
I somewhat agree with your concerns about social conservatives. They don't actually seem to control the republican party, and definitely do not control tea partiers. Since overall on those issues government is getting better, not worse, while on the issues I have with democrats the government is getting worse, I tend to vote republican unless there's an actual libertarian option. I do find that displaying a cross or celebrating christmas for government agencies is much, much, less intrusive into my life than decreeing that I'm not allowed to cary a gun, or that I have to agree to a virtual strip search to fly on a plane, or that insurance companies aren't allowed to offer low cost high deductible personal medical insurance plans, or that employers can't decide who to hire/fire based entirely on an objective merit, etc.
So, is "journalist" a de-facto title of nobility then? Seems that there might be a constitutional issue with that. Absolute immunity for police and prosecutors should also be questioned on those grounds, but I don't see that happening any time soon.