Cyber Liberty wrote:
"Say, did you know the TBR editing pane allows automatic word-wrapping?"
AT LAST, someone else finally notices and comments about this.
I've written to EasyAce about it before.
Below is what the article posted above looks like with NORMAL formatting.
By "normal" formatting I mean this:
- The only place a carriage return character is applied is at the END OF each paragraph.
- TWO CR's can be used to create space between paragraphs.
In EasyAce's post above, there is a CR at the end of EVERY LINE.
Thus, the haphazard formatting we see unless the window is enlarged "all the way to the right".
=====
At some point in the future, be it years, decades, or a century hence, the federal government will seek to ban driving.
This, I’m afraid, is an inevitability. It is inexorably heading our way. The dot sits now on the horizon. As is common, the measure will be sold in the name of public health. “Now that robots can do the work,†its bloodless advocates will explain, “there’s no need for human involvement.†And from then: On, the snowball will roll.
Each time there’s a bad accident, the utilitarians will squeal: about the stupidity of the American people; about the enormity of theretofore innocuous groups — “F*** AAA!â€; about the antediluvian “fetish†that is costing American lives. “In Sweden,†they will gripe, “they already . . . †Besides, we regulate trains and airplanes. Why can’t we outlaw the driver’s license?
Our debate will rest largely upon charts. The American Medical Association will find “no compelling reason to permit the citizenry to drive,†and Vox will quote it daily. Concurring in this assessment will be The New England Journal of Medicine, the Center for American Progress, and the newly rechristened Mothers against Dangerous Driving, for which outfits “dangerous†will have become a lazily supplied synonym for “human.†Atop this endless statistical beat will be a steady stream of mawkish anecdotes. “Joey was just 17.†“Sarah had three kids.†“Not a day goes by in which . . . †And pushed into the corner, as “flacks†and “extremists†and the owners of bloodstained hands, will be the dissenters. “But what,†they will ask, “about liberty?â€
As usual, the opponents of prohibition will be correct. Indeed, the threat to individual freedom that the driverless car is set to pose is at this stage hard to comprehend...
...[E]veryone will suffer from the catastrophic loss of privacy. Any network of self-driving cars would, by definition, necessitate total and unceasing tracking of their occupants . . . It is reasonable to test competency before permitting drivers on the public roads, and it is fair for the state to ensure that wheels are wheels and engines are reliable and airbags work upon request . . . It is not the role of government to force a free people into a dependency that they had happily escaped, or to radically alter their capacity for rapid movement in a culture that everywhere presupposes it. The designer Raymond Loewy recorded that “the American automobile has changed the habits of every member of modern society.†So it has — and vastly for the better. Uncle Sam, and SkyNet, must back the hell away.
==============
The difference is obvious.
In the example I've reformatted above, the text "flows" as the window size is changed. As such, it's easily readable whether one needs a smaller or larger window.
I often pass up reading EasyAce's posts -- which might otherwise be worthwhile -- because they're so frustrating to make sense out of...
