tomsing98

I have a document with a heading style for the main body (the standard Heading 1, Heading 2, etc., in a numeric multilevel list, e.g. section 1.2.3.4), and a heading style for the appendices (named AppHeading 1, AppHeading 2, etc., in a multilevel list with the first style a letter and the rest numbers, e.g. section A.2.3.4).

When I caption a figure in the main body, and include the chapter number, I get automatic styleref and seq fields,

Figure { STYLEREF 1 \s }-{ SEQ Figure \* ARABIC \s 1 }

In the styleref field, Word finds me the name of the most recent style 1. Apparently Word has it hard coded in that 1 means "Heading 1". The \s in the styleref field strips out any non-incremental text from the chapter name (if it was "Section 2.", I'd get just "2").

In the seq field, Word returns the next number in the sequence named Figure, formats it as an Arabic numeral (1, 2, 3, etc, as opposed to a Roman numeral or an ordinal number like 1st, 2nd), and resets the numbering at heading level 1.

So for the third figure in section 2, I get Figure 2-3. Which is exactly what I want.

But in the appendix, my "chapter number" and the sequence reset should be from "AppHeading 1". That's easy enough to change in the styleref field. There's no apparent way to do that in the seq field, though, so I'm forced to insert a Heading 9 style on the title page of my appendix and use

Figure { STYLEREF "AppHeading 1" \s }-{ SEQ Figure \* ARABIC \s 9 }

Which gives me Figure A-3, and that's great. A little kludgy with the Heading 9, but I'm not too bothered by it.

What does bother me, however, is that if I insert a new Figure caption anywhere in the document, Word automatically changes all my appendix Figure captions to

Figure { STYLEREF 1 \s }-{ SEQ Figure \* ARABIC \s 1 }

Is there a way to prevent Word from resetting my fields? Thanks in advance! (And, while you're at it, if anybody can suggest something to prevent my Heading 9 kludge, I'd appreciate that, too!)

My wife and I try to have people over for dinner once a month or so, and tonight, we're having three people over - Sally, and John and Jean. Every Wednesday, our circle of friends goes out for drinks, and last night it was my wife and I, Sally, and Paul and Pauline. We're all close friends, and I've had all of them over to my house for both small dinners and big holiday events. At the end of last night, I mentioned that we're having Sally over for dinner tonight, and Paul said to Pauline, "We're leaving," and got up and walked out of the restaurant. I should mention that Paul isn't a particularly sensitive guy, but he does enjoy creating an uncomfortable situation for a laugh. That's how our group of friends interacts. And it was funny.

My wife and Sally say that I shouldn't have said anything about it in front of people who weren't invited - even though they agreed that Paul was obviously going for a laugh, they think he was also a little bit offended. I can understand that if I'm inviting *nearly everyone* from our circle of 20 or so close friends that non-invitees would feel excluded, but it's a small gathering. I can understand if I spent the whole evening discussing plans, but it was one statement at the end of the evening. I don't think I've actually caused offense, or that something like this would be expected to cause offense.

Complicating matters is the fact that Paul is pretty well off, and has a large house that is well-equipped for entertaining, and I'm generally always invited to his events. On the other hand, if we're having dinner for more than 6 (including my wife and I), someone is going to be eating on the couch. When I've had larger holiday parties, I set up tables in the yard. I usually borrow them from Paul, actually. (November and December are a little more comfortable for eating outdoors than August here in Florida.) Speaking of the holiday parties, I'm infamous for creating a spreadsheet to randomly pick people to invite - even my yard is too small to accomodate all of our good friends, and I specifically didn't want people to feel left out. (I'm also kind of a nerd, and random number generators and complicated algorithms are kind of my thing.)

So - what's the etiquette for discussing a dinner invitation in front of people who aren't invited?

As in a high-tension wire on a utility pole - it's not that it's stretched any tighter than normal, it's just carrying a high voltage.

I can't think of any way that "tension" would have become synonymous with voltage. Maybe the visualization of electromotive force pulling charge through a conductor? I found this: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=tension... which says the use dates to 1802, but nothing further.

I appreciate any insight!

I'm thinking something like the Matlab "pretty" function. It would be nice to be able to take something that looks like =(-B1+sqrt(B1^2-4*A1*C1))/(2*A1) and output something like

-b + √(b² - 4∙a∙c)

------------------------

2∙a

Anybody know of anything like that?

In late December 2012, the world could change dramatically. No, not that.

Congress passed a law in 2004 saying essentially that the FAA, which regulates commercial space launches, should not put any regulations in place to address the safety of crew or spaceflight participants. (They're not called passengers, because the government doesn't want to imply the level of safety you could expect from a commercial airplane.) Part of the intent of that law was to let the industry develop on its own.

On December 23rd, 2012, that provision is set to expire.

To date, there has been one private manned launch vehicle, SpaceShipOne, and it flew into suborbital space three times, carrying only a pilot on each flight; it is now retired. SpaceShipTwo is planned to begin flight tests in 2010, and enter commercial service with Virgin Galactic in 2011. I am not aware of any other commercial manned vehicles planned to enter service before the law expires.

So, should the FAA begin regulating commercial manned spaceflight? If so, to what extent? And if you were flying to space, how safe would you expect to be?

In late December 2012, the world could change dramatically. No, not that.

Congress passed a law in 2004 saying essentially that the FAA, which regulates commercial space launches, should not put any regulations in place to address the safety of crew or spaceflight participants. (They're not called passengers, because the government doesn't want to imply the level of safety you could expect from a commercial airplane.) Part of the intent of that law was to let the industry develop on its own.

On December 23rd, 2012, that provision is set to expire.

To date, there has been one private manned launch vehicle, SpaceShipOne, and it flew into suborbital space three times, carrying only a pilot on each flight; it is now retired. SpaceShipTwo is planned to begin flight tests in 2010, and enter commercial service with Virgin Galactic in 2011. I am not aware of any other commercial manned vehicles planned to enter service before the law expires.

So, should the FAA begin regulating commercial manned spaceflight? If so, to what extent? And if you were flying to space, how safe would you expect to be?

In late December 2012, the world could change dramatically. No, not that.

Congress passed a law in 2004 saying essentially that the FAA, which regulates commercial space launches, should not put any regulations in place to address the safety of crew or spaceflight participants. (They're not called passengers, because the government doesn't want to imply the level of safety you could expect from a commercial airplane.) Part of the intent of that law was to let the industry develop on its own.

On December 23rd, 2012, that provision is set to expire.

To date, there has been one private manned launch vehicle, SpaceShipOne, and it flew into suborbital space three times, carrying only a pilot on each flight; it is now retired. SpaceShipTwo is planned to begin flight tests in 2010, and enter commercial service with Virgin Galactic in 2011. I am not aware of any other commercial manned vehicles planned to enter service before the law expires.

So, should the FAA begin regulating commercial manned spaceflight? If so, to what extent? And if you were flying to space, how safe would you expect to be?

http://gallery.me.com/ruthsinger9#100174/IMG_2612&...

I appreciate anybody's help!

I'm writing a document with equations, and numbering useful ones. In order to do that, I'm inserting a SEQ field. I end up with 2 lines of equation objects, like this:

*******************

As shown below, x depends on y, a, and b.

-------------

|x = y+z |

|z = a*b |

-------------

-----------------

|x = y+a*b |..........................(1)

-----------------

This can be used.......

********************

I'm currently using the same style, Equation, for both "paragraphs". What I would like is for the first paragraph to keep with next, only when the next paragraph is also in the Equation style, to keep the whole set of equations together. I do not need the numbered line to keep with the next line.

One workaround is to create 2 seperate styles, because most of the time, non-numbered equations are followed by a numbered equation. That may not *always* be the case, though, and I'd have to create a third style to handle that.

A second workaround is to add a line to my numbering macro that applies Keep With Next to the previous line. But since I don't always use non-numbered equations before numbered ones, I'd have to test to see if the previous line was, indeed, an equation. Which would mean I'd have to be more linear with my equation writing than I'd prefer.

So, the ideal is to have a Keep With Next (Only if Next is Same Style) option, but I'm not sure if that's possible. Any ideas?