Problems to open a file extension docx?
First what is it, what does the docx mean?
It is a Word processing format introduced with Microsoft Word 2007 (it belongs to Office 12); it is based on Open XML and uses ZIP compression for smaller file sizes. It could be compatible with Microsoft Office 2000, Office XP, and Office 2003 if the Microsoft Office Compatibility Pack (FileFormatConverters.exe) is installed.
If any doubt you can check the Microsoft support page.
With the appropriate software you can convert a file extension docx document into a Word document.
The programs that can open a file extension docx can be for a MAC os: Microsoft Word 2008, Apple Pages, Panergy docXConverter; for a Windows os: Microsoft Word 2007, Microsoft Word with Compatibility Pack, Panergy docXConverter, OxygenOffice Professional, OpenOffice.org with Odf-Converter, NativeWinds Docx2Rtf; and for a Linux os: OxygenOffice Professional, OpenOffice.org with Odf-Converter.
Wednesday, December 09, 2009
Friday, November 20, 2009
Saturday, November 14, 2009
What is a journalist?
He is like a cook.
Here are the raw materials: onions, garlic, oil, tomatoes, meat and so on.
My mother was a great cook.
I do not know if she was a good journalist, but I am sure as a gossiper she was the best.
She was gossiper number one in all neighborhood.
She was good in finding the hilarious side of everyone and every situation.
She was not malicious, she was funny.
People didn’t hate her; they liked and laughed about what she said.
She would have been a great columnist in a local newspaper hadn’t she been born when there were no columns and a very few local papers.
This is my point: give two people the same material and you will have very different results.
Writing news is elaborating the raw material finding the interesting in it and when failing to find the interesting in it, being able to present it as if it was actually very interesting.
Saying and omitting, using certain words and other meanings, making invisible parallels and being able to see the human side in all what you are talking about.
Putting a little bit of this spice and less of the other, making a special taste out of plain basic materials.
Writing is an art, and humor is a part of it.
But humor is in the beholder’s eyes.
Either you have it or you don’t.
It is like a Midas touch.
When you can write, then you can transform everything.
Just like when you can paint or you can sing.
The voice makes the song.
The artist makes the color.
The journalist makes the news.
Here are the raw materials: onions, garlic, oil, tomatoes, meat and so on.
My mother was a great cook.
I do not know if she was a good journalist, but I am sure as a gossiper she was the best.
She was gossiper number one in all neighborhood.
She was good in finding the hilarious side of everyone and every situation.
She was not malicious, she was funny.
People didn’t hate her; they liked and laughed about what she said.
She would have been a great columnist in a local newspaper hadn’t she been born when there were no columns and a very few local papers.
This is my point: give two people the same material and you will have very different results.
Writing news is elaborating the raw material finding the interesting in it and when failing to find the interesting in it, being able to present it as if it was actually very interesting.
Saying and omitting, using certain words and other meanings, making invisible parallels and being able to see the human side in all what you are talking about.
Putting a little bit of this spice and less of the other, making a special taste out of plain basic materials.
Writing is an art, and humor is a part of it.
But humor is in the beholder’s eyes.
Either you have it or you don’t.
It is like a Midas touch.
When you can write, then you can transform everything.
Just like when you can paint or you can sing.
The voice makes the song.
The artist makes the color.
The journalist makes the news.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Capitalism or Socialism?
In the early postwar period, the leading U.S. companies had little to fear from international competitors, then only beginning to emerge from the ruin of the Second World War. U.S. political and military power, meanwhile, helped secure sources of cheap raw materials and energy. The U.S. government propped up friendly dictators whom it could count on to “fight communism,” maintain the security of U.S. companies’ investments, and quash efforts at labor organization. When this strategy failed, as when socialist or nationalist governments came to power and threatened U.S. companies’ property or access to cheap labor, the U.S. government engineered coups or intervened militarily.
The existence of unions and the steady increase in real wages helped to fuel booming demand for the products churned out by growing mass-production industries.
In the 1970s, the United States’ position as the unchallenged colossus of the capitalist world was suddenly threatened from multiple directions: rising international competition, spiking energy prices, declining productivity and profitability, and soaring inflation and unemployment.
In 1973-1974, the first of two major “oil shocks” increased the price of petroleum four-fold, dramatically raising energy costs for both consumers and businesses. Workers’ wage demands outpaced the rate of productivity growth, driving up unit labor costs for businesses. The annual inflation rate spiked to over 10% in 1974 and again in each of the three years from 1979 to 1981. The annual unemployment rate topped 8% in 1975 and would reach nearly 10% in 1982.
When facing a recession, policymakers could lower interest rates, increase government spending, or lower taxes to stimulate demand and bring down the unemployment rate, at the cost of some increase in the inflation rate.
The U.S. government had encouraged the reconstruction of the economies of Western Europe and Japan, both to undermine the appeal of communism in those countries and to demonstrate the superiority of capitalism to the rest of the world. The revival of manufacturing in Europe and Japan, however, also meant increased competition for U.S. firms in “core” manufacturing industries like steel and auto.
Capitalists are more able to resist demands for wage increases (or even to impose wage cuts) if there are many unemployed people seeking work, and the employers can credibly threaten to replace current workers with unemployed job-seekers. Capitalists’ ability to enforce a high pace of work also depends on the existence of substantial unemployment. The threat of firing, a key means for disciplining workers, is more credible if employers can easily replace fired workers and if workers losing their jobs would likely face a long and costly period of unemployment. Long periods of very low unemployment threaten capitalist profitability for both these reasons.
If capitalists do not expect to make a profit, they will not invest (purchase buildings, machinery, etc.) or hire workers.
The crisis of the 1970s marked the end of the “Golden Age” framework and the advent of “neoliberal” capitalism.
Like the New Deal in the 1930s, the Reagan era laid the groundwork of a new set of relatively stable framework institutions. The so-called neoliberal social structure of accumulation, monstrous though it was, functioned as a framework for capital accumulation and economic growth for nearly three decades. Now it has fallen into crisis.
Few people outside the rabid right believe that capitalism faces imminent abolition in the United States.
Alejandro Reuss, Dollars and Sense.
If this would happen, it is hard to think of something that could replace it.
"a society based on workers’ control of their own workplaces, democratic control over the economy-wide allocation of resources, " has been already proved as bankruptcy as Capitalism.
What doesn’t work is not the ideology or the society organization, while one, the capitalistic would in the end provide rich an poor and be the mirror of human diversity, the second would try to equalize humans on the base of equal rights, both work as long as they stick to ideology.
When ideas become reality they lose their purpose and "ideality", they very often become a tool in the hands of the "strong" to take advantage of the "weak", the weak being the one who strongly believes in them.
The existence of unions and the steady increase in real wages helped to fuel booming demand for the products churned out by growing mass-production industries.
In the 1970s, the United States’ position as the unchallenged colossus of the capitalist world was suddenly threatened from multiple directions: rising international competition, spiking energy prices, declining productivity and profitability, and soaring inflation and unemployment.
In 1973-1974, the first of two major “oil shocks” increased the price of petroleum four-fold, dramatically raising energy costs for both consumers and businesses. Workers’ wage demands outpaced the rate of productivity growth, driving up unit labor costs for businesses. The annual inflation rate spiked to over 10% in 1974 and again in each of the three years from 1979 to 1981. The annual unemployment rate topped 8% in 1975 and would reach nearly 10% in 1982.
When facing a recession, policymakers could lower interest rates, increase government spending, or lower taxes to stimulate demand and bring down the unemployment rate, at the cost of some increase in the inflation rate.
The U.S. government had encouraged the reconstruction of the economies of Western Europe and Japan, both to undermine the appeal of communism in those countries and to demonstrate the superiority of capitalism to the rest of the world. The revival of manufacturing in Europe and Japan, however, also meant increased competition for U.S. firms in “core” manufacturing industries like steel and auto.
Capitalists are more able to resist demands for wage increases (or even to impose wage cuts) if there are many unemployed people seeking work, and the employers can credibly threaten to replace current workers with unemployed job-seekers. Capitalists’ ability to enforce a high pace of work also depends on the existence of substantial unemployment. The threat of firing, a key means for disciplining workers, is more credible if employers can easily replace fired workers and if workers losing their jobs would likely face a long and costly period of unemployment. Long periods of very low unemployment threaten capitalist profitability for both these reasons.
If capitalists do not expect to make a profit, they will not invest (purchase buildings, machinery, etc.) or hire workers.
The crisis of the 1970s marked the end of the “Golden Age” framework and the advent of “neoliberal” capitalism.
Like the New Deal in the 1930s, the Reagan era laid the groundwork of a new set of relatively stable framework institutions. The so-called neoliberal social structure of accumulation, monstrous though it was, functioned as a framework for capital accumulation and economic growth for nearly three decades. Now it has fallen into crisis.
Few people outside the rabid right believe that capitalism faces imminent abolition in the United States.
Alejandro Reuss, Dollars and Sense.
If this would happen, it is hard to think of something that could replace it.
"a society based on workers’ control of their own workplaces, democratic control over the economy-wide allocation of resources, " has been already proved as bankruptcy as Capitalism.
What doesn’t work is not the ideology or the society organization, while one, the capitalistic would in the end provide rich an poor and be the mirror of human diversity, the second would try to equalize humans on the base of equal rights, both work as long as they stick to ideology.
When ideas become reality they lose their purpose and "ideality", they very often become a tool in the hands of the "strong" to take advantage of the "weak", the weak being the one who strongly believes in them.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Talking about Venice´s bridges
The Rialto bridge was completed in 1591.
The work took 3 years. It’s a combination of beauty and functionality.
The last bridge built in Venice should have cost two million Euro, but the cost has reached 14 millions.
Seven years to build it, the same time required to build an average pyramid.
With the difference that this bridge doesn´t even look nice.
Construction in Italy is a business. It’s no longer a necessity. A speculation whose beneficiaries are the property groups and the banks.
And regarding architecture (as design very often) the last think they think about is building something useful.
It is no longer architecture, but simply industrial design.
The important is to create a "scenario", what should be inside or what this scenario is created for doesn´t matter.
If people were water or clouds or dwarfs or whatever, certain buildings or certain tools would be perfect.
Straight is not fashionable anymore.
Everything must be twisted or upside dow.
The roof is not a roof because it has to look like a floor.
And may be, why not?
A building pinched in the middle.
Once you tried to save space and use it at its best.
Now they save nothing and use the space at its worst.
It has to look "different" because different is "new" and "trendy".
One example of this is the Olympic Stadium in Peking. Forty thousand tons of pure steel. Six thousand tons would normally be enough to build a stadium. Is this total waste of energy at all worthwhile? Is it really so beautiful?
The buildings are becoming more and more unbalanced and they land up costing four or five times as much.
That is because technology would allow us to make things "perfect".
We use it instead to make "s..ts"
The work took 3 years. It’s a combination of beauty and functionality.
The last bridge built in Venice should have cost two million Euro, but the cost has reached 14 millions.
Seven years to build it, the same time required to build an average pyramid.
With the difference that this bridge doesn´t even look nice.
Construction in Italy is a business. It’s no longer a necessity. A speculation whose beneficiaries are the property groups and the banks.
And regarding architecture (as design very often) the last think they think about is building something useful.
It is no longer architecture, but simply industrial design.
The important is to create a "scenario", what should be inside or what this scenario is created for doesn´t matter.
If people were water or clouds or dwarfs or whatever, certain buildings or certain tools would be perfect.
Straight is not fashionable anymore.
Everything must be twisted or upside dow.
The roof is not a roof because it has to look like a floor.
And may be, why not?
A building pinched in the middle.
Once you tried to save space and use it at its best.
Now they save nothing and use the space at its worst.
It has to look "different" because different is "new" and "trendy".
One example of this is the Olympic Stadium in Peking. Forty thousand tons of pure steel. Six thousand tons would normally be enough to build a stadium. Is this total waste of energy at all worthwhile? Is it really so beautiful?
The buildings are becoming more and more unbalanced and they land up costing four or five times as much.
That is because technology would allow us to make things "perfect".
We use it instead to make "s..ts"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Stumble It!