If you can't see a difference between "can do no wrong" and "not perfect", then we have no common ground upon which communications could profit .. not even a common language

You're absolutely right. And here's the problem - you're struggling with some basic English. Seeing a "meaningful distinction" is completely different to just seeing a "difference".

It's nothing but semantic masturbation to claim there is any difference in real world outcomes between "I'm better than you" and "I'm perfect". Makes you feel good, maybe, but it's no use to anybody else, and embarrassing to witness in public.

Out of interest, how far did you have to shove your head up your ass to find lines like, "we have no common ground upon which communications could profit"?

You don't even realise how sad it is that you thought the two big words are so much more important than the little one, do you?

Mandela, that well known Western leader! And Kenya, surely the finest of all Western nations! Not a single result on Google for Blair calling him a murderous autocrat, either.

You're just making it up, aren't you?

Incredible vanity will also make you feckless and ineffective. Why use three words when one will do? But it is very impressive that you prefer to use the big words. Maybe Jiminy will give you an extra wish as a reward.

Read those papers again. You'll find the leaders of the Western World use diplomatic language regarding Mugabe personally. Words like "tyrant" might crop up, but not "scumbag" or "murderous". They don't meet with him anyway, which makes them irrelevant to the discussion of how diplomats should talk to their contacts. You should read the posts a bit more closely before commenting.

If your point was about how everyone knows Mugabe is a scumbag - well, no shit, Sherlock. And is anyone surprised to find out that Berlusconi is vain? Is anyone of adult age really so naive that it bothers them diplomats don't call him that to his face?

You can wish for unicorns and ponies and everybody always being honest with each other if you like. I'm sure Jiminy Cricket will be right along to sort that out for you.

If the conversations between the US and its contacts are of such "unflattering" nature that they give rise to diplomatic crises when uncovered, then perhaps the US should have trained their employees and contact to not behave that way.

Absolutely. I'm sure you'd agree that Robert Mugabe is a wonderful person, and how terrible it is that anyone might criticise him simply for being a murderous dictator responsible for the deaths of vast swathes of his felIlow citizens. How uncivil it would be to point such a thing out. Right thinking people such as yourself should not stand for such indecent revelations.

Try reading that book again. Adams includes the budget process in his list of one level removed activities, and says, "You couldn't run a company, for example, without a budget process. I'm not suggesting you try." He then goes on to provide further advice, essentially that fiddling and reorganising is usually bad, while re-engineering and streamlining can be good. The latter are one level removed.

Be careful of taking simplisitic advice out of context to reinforce your own sense of superiority.

The biggest gang wins. That what Democracy is.

I would've sworn that was mob rule. This recent decision to give the "gangs" rights certainly keeps the US at the very forefront of democratic experimentation.

As a legal convenience .. The AARP is a corporation. The NEA is a corporation. The AFL/CIO is a corporation. The NAACP is a corporation.

True, true. So, your democratic philosophy is one of gangs and legal conveniences. I've got to admire the inventiveness. It would never have occurred to me to look at it that way.

As a Brit, it's fascinating to watch the direction the US is taking. When the colonies declared their independence, they were all about "self-evident truth" and "unalienable rights". We were awfully put out. But it turns out, they're just as keen as us to find ways to ensure hereditary power. We really shouldn't have worried.

It doesn't work like that. Off-the-shelf software is far cheaper than paying development time for a bespoke solution, even including upgrade costs. Software vendors typically have to make significant changes over a ten year frame. Accept that some of those changes may favour a different set of users, learn to factor maintenance into your budgeting, and suck it up.

Heh. That isn't brutal honesty, it's rampant insecurity.

If you're smart, then a new interface isn't a challenge. If you're focused, then a new interface won't interfere with your work. If you're experienced, then you'll know that even after 15 years you can find better ways to do things - and that the more you've invested in the previous method, the more effort the change will take. You'll also have noticed that resistance to change is strongest from those who fear their superiority is being challenged. The smarter they are, the more excuses they can come up with. The less confident they are, and the more pathetically emotive their language becomes (the ribbon interface is "whoring"? Seriously?) .

People focused on outcomes rather than self-aggrandisation tend not to bother with excuses or complaints. Stick with familiar tools for the duration of the project, or set aside some time to learn a new set of keystrokes. Either way, stay focused on the things that matter.

Office has never been specialized software, and certainly not for thesis work. The 65K limit was removed at the same time the Ribbon was introduced. You probably shouldn't be doing a Ph.D. if a new interface is more than you can cope with, and with that disregard for actual facts you really should ask yourself if research is the kind of thing you're suited for.

You might want to re-think your sarcasm there. XP's development started back in 1999, and most of Microsoft's customers are happy to keep using it. It's also a business product, as are Vista and 7.

Do you really think the operating system is a good example of how exciting and successful Microsoft has been in the consumer market in the last 10 years?

It's not too difficult to understand if you think about what's going on in the use case: presentation software is used in situations where the presenter is having their competence judged.

Imagine this prosecutor shows up with an .odp file that can't be used by the industry standard, PowerPoint-based set up provided by the venue. So after bit of confusion, he gets it saved as a .ppt file. It looks like ass. He started late. Some of the transitions or animations go funny in the change of file format. He's put off his stride and doesn't do a great job in front of an important crowd. 400 of his peers think he's an idiot. Suddenly the conversations he'd been planning to have with a few key people are more about the style rather than the substance of his presentation. A minor IT problem which no-one had ever thought to mention in the cross-training from MS to Open Office has a critical impact.

If all IT had to say was, "Seriously? It just puts stuff up on the screen," then I wouldn't blame the rest of the organisation just shutting down the migration process due to incompetence.

Happiness is exponentially growing income?

Nonsense. There's plenty of happy people not doubling their income on a regular basis. Where on earth have you observed this?

Like I said to the other guy, if you're going to be bitter, you should at least try to be well informed. Let me remove your veil of ignorance by quoting Bastiat's original conclusion of the parable of the broken window, contained in What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/That_Which_Is_Seen,_and_That_Which_Is_Not_Seen#The_Broken_Window/

it is equally absurd to see a profit in trade restriction, which is, after all, nothing more nor less than partial destruction. So, if you get to the bottom of all the arguments advanced in favor of restrictionist measures, you will find only a paraphrase of that common cliché: "What would become of the glaziers if no one ever broke any windows?"

The full piece also comments on public works. It is fairly obvious to anyone that has actually read it that the subject is artificial stimuli and their unseen consequences. Oh, and deficit spending isn't basically the government taking a loan and investing it, because that definition wouldn't allow for a government choosing to build a surplus and using it for deficit spending at the bottom of an economic cycle.

You might ask yourself: if you're getting all the facts wrong, just how good is your judgement regarding who is and who is not being productive?

I think the main ones are:

- Finding the devil has stolen your soul
- Losing all meaningful connection with the rest of humanity
- Being unable to tell a decent joke
- Waiting staff hating you from behind their smiles

I believe most people going into the industry find these risks quite acceptable.

Yes, I've heard the Broken Window Fallacy. It's about artificial stimuli such as deficit spending and protectionism. It has nothing to do with this story.

If you're going to come across bitter, best to at least sound well informed...