Note that it may be the LO is more "forgiving" in that it won't outright crash or give up if it can't fully process formatting commands, but try its best to make a guess and continue. However, MS-Word is generally more faithful across MS versions in terms of displayed formatting in my experience.
Compatibility: we want our documents to look same if we hand them to somebody else. It's not easy to match MS-Word's layout engine bug-for-bug in another product.
Although one can turn off Microsoft Word's annoying "auto-guess" and "smart replace" features, I've found you have to do it in two different places, do it to each replacement character or sequence, and finding those two places is not intuitive.
Ideally, Microsoft would make a single button for "turn off ALL auto-guess and auto-replacement features". But that's not the Microsoft way: they want you to become dependent on auto-guess such that you'll miss it on competitor products and come running back to Mother Microsoft.
Their stupid "smart quotes" with the forward and backward lean are probably the biggest pet-peeve auto-shit feature of MS. If you paste such text into different products, it often renders them all wrong. MS's solution: "Only use MS products with MS text and everything will be just fine".
MS's behavior often demonstrates the stupid side of capitalism: naive customer manipulation, standards-rigging, monopolies, long-term dependency, bait-and-switch, FUD PR, etc. (I'm not saying there are no upsides to capitalism, but MS sure does a bang-up job of reminding one about the down-sides; if they bother to look around.)
In theory once they know you do a good job at your actual job, the superficial things don't weigh as much in their mind. When bunches of applicants with similar resumes are applying, then other things like age tend to have a greater effect on decisions.
But often the evidence is not so clear cut, or conflicting. For example, the relatively sudden appearance of most known phyla during the dawn of the Cambrian Explosion tends to be a ding against natural selection. But how big of a ding is tricky to objectively measure: opinion comes into play, and that opinion could be influenced by subconscious factors.
I agree with "try both". There are too many variables to pick a winner up front at this point. Electric has a lower infrastructure barrier of entry (we all have power outlets already), but hydrogen offers potentially more efficiency.
By the way, why not put solar panels on more electric cars? My car sits in the parking lot 9 or so hours in direct sun. It could power roughly 1/3 of my commute if the roof and hood(s) had panels. Some say the weight of the panels cuts into too much of the benefits, but what if the panels WERE the top and roof instead of being glued on top? I'm not a materials expert, so maybe that's where the bottleneck is. Expert anyone?
That's a sticking point, especially with conservatives in that they often believe that bias toward "big government" or "hedonistic lifestyles" causes many scientists cherry pick or misinterpret data, either consciously or unconsciously.
But it's hard to objectively measure the alleged motivations you mention. Also, the big bang is not scientifically repeatable (any time soon) such that repeatability of experiment is not an issue here.
I generally agree with your assessment of motivation, but it's very difficult to measure and present such objectively. Science shouldn't rest on guessing motivations of theory proponents.
Religion also has peer review; witness Martin Luther. However, disagreements often result in forking the religion, not down-grading one, unless you count popularity. If you count popularity and forking, then indeed there is peer review roughly equivalent to science and the difference is blurred, for good or bad.
managers decided that it would be a good idea to track the progress of each individual engineer in terms of the amount of code...[Bill rewrote] the region engine using a simpler, more general algorithm...As a by-product, the rewrite also saved around 2,000 lines of code... wrote in the number: -2000... they stopped asking Bill to fill out the form
He's lucky; my bosses would see the negative sign and bill me.
Lots of people in their 40s and 50s and 60s have mediocre jobs writing 200 lines of code per quarter in some large corporation.
But maybe it's a damn good 200 lines:-)
Note that measuring productivity by lines-of-code has a lot of caveats. I've seen bad, repetitious code that could have been reduced to 1/5 its size if the repetitious parts were simply put in functions with optional key-word parameters. The programmer didn't "get" key-word parameters.
I lived in California after the dot-com crash, and the field was tough-going for a few years. I had to take some out-of-state contracts with sleazy agencies to pay the bills. Fortunately I had some "legacy" knowledge to fall back on compared to the web-only developers, who had to compete directly with other webbies recently dumped from the failed dot-coms.
Remember, ups-and-downs are likely and the field changes fast. Being good enough to work in the field during the boom years may not be good enough for the bust years, and you could wind up with the wrong skills at the wrong time.
In my opinion, for a longer view, pick a field you are good at rather than one that appears strong now.
And people skills are always good to have and/or hone because that reduces the chance you'll be off-shored or automated out of the job.
Slashdot Mirror
So that's how the Borg started.
Snowden just gave me a pre-release
My experience is different.
Note that it may be the LO is more "forgiving" in that it won't outright crash or give up if it can't fully process formatting commands, but try its best to make a guess and continue. However, MS-Word is generally more faithful across MS versions in terms of displayed formatting in my experience.
Study Slashdot Beta so you know what not to do.
EARTH Magazine? Do they also publish URANUS Monthly? Finally a venue for goat.se
Is that a mountain in your pants or are you just happy to see us humans?
Swap & cached files, yes, you are finally beginning to understand. See 640k is enough if you do it right. -Bill G.
Sneak in an ASCII Clippy into his WordStar just to mess with him.
Compatibility: we want our documents to look same if we hand them to somebody else. It's not easy to match MS-Word's layout engine bug-for-bug in another product.
and he's been working on an ASCII version of Duke Nukem for the past 25 years...
Although one can turn off Microsoft Word's annoying "auto-guess" and "smart replace" features, I've found you have to do it in two different places, do it to each replacement character or sequence, and finding those two places is not intuitive.
Ideally, Microsoft would make a single button for "turn off ALL auto-guess and auto-replacement features". But that's not the Microsoft way: they want you to become dependent on auto-guess such that you'll miss it on competitor products and come running back to Mother Microsoft.
Their stupid "smart quotes" with the forward and backward lean are probably the biggest pet-peeve auto-shit feature of MS. If you paste such text into different products, it often renders them all wrong. MS's solution: "Only use MS products with MS text and everything will be just fine".
MS's behavior often demonstrates the stupid side of capitalism: naive customer manipulation, standards-rigging, monopolies, long-term dependency, bait-and-switch, FUD PR, etc. (I'm not saying there are no upsides to capitalism, but MS sure does a bang-up job of reminding one about the down-sides; if they bother to look around.)
In theory once they know you do a good job at your actual job, the superficial things don't weigh as much in their mind. When bunches of applicants with similar resumes are applying, then other things like age tend to have a greater effect on decisions.
But often the evidence is not so clear cut, or conflicting. For example, the relatively sudden appearance of most known phyla during the dawn of the Cambrian Explosion tends to be a ding against natural selection. But how big of a ding is tricky to objectively measure: opinion comes into play, and that opinion could be influenced by subconscious factors.
I agree with "try both". There are too many variables to pick a winner up front at this point. Electric has a lower infrastructure barrier of entry (we all have power outlets already), but hydrogen offers potentially more efficiency.
By the way, why not put solar panels on more electric cars? My car sits in the parking lot 9 or so hours in direct sun. It could power roughly 1/3 of my commute if the roof and hood(s) had panels. Some say the weight of the panels cuts into too much of the benefits, but what if the panels WERE the top and roof instead of being glued on top? I'm not a materials expert, so maybe that's where the bottleneck is. Expert anyone?
That's a sticking point, especially with conservatives in that they often believe that bias toward "big government" or "hedonistic lifestyles" causes many scientists cherry pick or misinterpret data, either consciously or unconsciously.
CD's came of age in the Max Headroom era. People talked like that like that.
But it's hard to objectively measure the alleged motivations you mention. Also, the big bang is not scientifically repeatable (any time soon) such that repeatability of experiment is not an issue here.
I generally agree with your assessment of motivation, but it's very difficult to measure and present such objectively. Science shouldn't rest on guessing motivations of theory proponents.
Religion also has peer review; witness Martin Luther. However, disagreements often result in forking the religion, not down-grading one, unless you count popularity. If you count popularity and forking, then indeed there is peer review roughly equivalent to science and the difference is blurred, for good or bad.
He's lucky; my bosses would see the negative sign and bill me.
How did they name turtles?:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
"quack quack"
They don't have to be mutually exclusive; invent MOBOL.
Seriously, I once saw Active COBOL Pages for web. The company popped, however.
But maybe it's a damn good 200 lines :-)
Note that measuring productivity by lines-of-code has a lot of caveats. I've seen bad, repetitious code that could have been reduced to 1/5 its size if the repetitious parts were simply put in functions with optional key-word parameters. The programmer didn't "get" key-word parameters.
I lived in California after the dot-com crash, and the field was tough-going for a few years. I had to take some out-of-state contracts with sleazy agencies to pay the bills. Fortunately I had some "legacy" knowledge to fall back on compared to the web-only developers, who had to compete directly with other webbies recently dumped from the failed dot-coms.
Remember, ups-and-downs are likely and the field changes fast. Being good enough to work in the field during the boom years may not be good enough for the bust years, and you could wind up with the wrong skills at the wrong time.
In my opinion, for a longer view, pick a field you are good at rather than one that appears strong now.
And people skills are always good to have and/or hone because that reduces the chance you'll be off-shored or automated out of the job.
Are you accusing polar bears of being slow learners! How dare ya!