OK, Google Docs is worse than a joke

By -
It is supposed to be "compatible" with Microsoft Word. I had a document extensively formatted in Word, with about twenty styles or so. But to edit it on my Chromebook, I had to use Docs. Well, importing destroyed almost all of my styles and a lot of the formatting that went with them.

But I had edited the document quite a bit before I discovered the full extent of the devastation. "All right," I thought, "I'll bite the bullet and re-create all of these styles in Google Docs."

But wait a second: I see a few styles, but how do I create my own? There doesn't seem to be any "New Style" menu option... Oh, here we go. You just... WHAAAAAT?!! You can have custom styles, apparently, so long as they are all named "Heading X," where X is an integer.

So, I can create styles, but I can't name them "Bibliography" or "LongQuote" or "Equation." No, I have to memorize what number each style is! O, and if I try to create a table of contents, all of these "headings" will automatically get sucked into it, even if what they are really being used for is, say, formatting my bibliography.

Excuse me while I go smash myself in the head with a hammer for having put my work in Google's hands. This abortion is not a professional word processing tool.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose...
Read more