Podcasts also have "show notes", i.e. text describing what this podcast is about. I believe this text is stored in the id3 lyrics space, not sure though. The iPod displays these show notes for podcasts.
Some podcasts even have chapter marks, although these are always in AAC. The iPod, of course, supports chapter marks in AAC files, even with a different picture for each chapter. There is a standard proposed to add chapter marks to MP3, but I'm not aware of a hardware player that supports that.
Also, the iPod remembers the last position in a podcast and starts right there, unlike a song which always start at the beginning.
This is because deep down most people understand that socialism is good. Unfortunately, they're brainwashed by a greedy elite and a self-perpetuating system that capitalism is the best thing since sliced bread.
> You can add new tabs by opening accounts registers, reports or budgets. I don't know how else you'd like to add new tabs.
How can opening a new account register add a new tab to an already open account register window, if I have it configured to open a new window each time?
One can argue about the menu thing, some people might like it to start tasks from a register window. Personally, I find it cluttering and distracting.
Well, I should have tried this out before answering.
The entire menu showing in register windows? Plus the name of the account as a tab, even though you can't add new tabs? Windows that take 3 seconds to open and you can watch the construction of the contents which resizes the window multiple times? What is this, 1995? Moronic.
Gnucash had a somewhat confusing UI before, now the "changes" just make it worse.
Re:I Am Really Interested In Looking This Over
on
GnuCash 1.9.0 Released
·
· Score: 3, Informative
> PS I'm not going to list the many features changed or updated in this release because obviously there is so much that has changed
Like what? I was eagerly awaiting this release, mainly because GTK1 sucks on OS X (no umlauts in my experience). So far, the only changes I noticed (besides the GTK2 switch) is budgeting and closing of a financial year, both of which I haven't tried so far. Plus a dubious UI change by presenting account windows as tabs and not as real windows, meaning you can only see one account at a time. It still has the old UI bugs, my favorite being that the reports don't resize with the window and that reports are lost when you switch files. This after years of work.
You're putting words in my mouth. My central position is that I want no nation to have the bomb. My observation is that the behavior of the nations in the nuclear club is terribly unhelpful towards that goal.
One more point: Nations have no morals. Thus it makes no sense to talk about if it's morally equivalent for the US and Iran to have the bomb, that's just idle talk. Your claim that a democratic nation is somehow more right to have the bomb than other nations is ridiculous in the light of the destruction that democratic nations have brought upon our world.
Honestly, I just think it's rhetoric to whip up the masses. Kinda like George Bush always talks about the terrorists without actually doing something against them. Do you really think that the Iranian leadership would accept a nuclear retaliation by Israel as a price to pay for wiping Israel from the face of the earth? If that retaliation would include the end of their rule in Iran? I think not.
Anyway, what about Pakistan? They have the bomb and are neither peaceful nor democratic. Their chief nuclear scientist traded his knowledge on the black market, possibly helping the Iranians. Yet, so far there have been no consequences for his actions. Where's the outrage? Also, aren't you forgetting that the US is the only nation that actually used the bomb in a war? Twice! Democratic nations don't use the bomb? They also don't firebomb entire cities (Dresden, Tokyo), right? Give me a break.
It is pathetic to suggest that the US (and other nations) should be allowed to have nuclear weapons and others not, especially when the nations in the nuclear club have threatened to use the bomb against nations that don't have them (US, UK, and most recently France).
You're trolling once again, by making me choose in a false dichotomy.
To answer your questions:
a) I believe Iran is full of shit and in fact wants to aquire nuclear weapons. b) I am troubled by this development, but not for the reasons that apparently trouble you (as a self-labeled neocon).
To flesh the second point out: I don't want to Iran to go nuclear, because it would put pressure on all regimes in the region to get the bomb as well. And further proliferation means that the chances increase, that the weapons will one day be used. Note, that Israel's safety is tangential to this issue, because I don't think that the power balance in the Middle East will fundamentaly shift in a way that puts Israel at a disadvantage, your first quote notwithstanding. (By the way, I'm Jewish.)
However, who can blame them? In the current geopolitical climate it makes very good sense for them to get the bomb. If the US (and by extension you neocons) were serious about the threat that nuclear weapons pose, you would work on non-proliferation and disarmament, as you've promised to do in treaties you've signed. But no, you just want to have the real big stick for yourself. Well, fuck that.
I concede the point that banning guns in the US would give criminals an advantage currently, because the states are so awash with guns. But that doesn't mean that this reality is set in stone and a ban would not be possible. It requires a cultural change that can easily take decades. However, the recent hostility in the US towards smoking shows that this can be done.
As to the other points:
* Guns are not an equalizer in a conflict situation, they quickly escalate it to the point that somebody gets shot. Also, I'd argue that the attacker is in a better position, because (a) he has the element of surprise and (b) he knows his gun is strong threat and thus his victim will be more likely to submit to his demands. The victim having a gun doesn't change the power balance in this situation, because it's too late for him to react. If he tries to pull his gun, he'll likely get shot. Thus the gun makes the attacker actually safer, because he knows he's in a much stronger position and thus he's more likely to attack. (I know this is over-simplified and not applicable to all situations, but it's late.)
* Also, there are various non-lethal means that can be used for self-defense (e.g. pepper sprays and stun guns).
* If you're afraid of someone intruding your home, I suggest buying good locks and insurance against burglaries. And regarding car-jackings: The only car-jackings I know of happen in Grand Theft Auto. It's simply not common-place where I live (Germany). I imagine it is quite hard to force somebody to leave his car without pointing a gun at them.
* The theory that having an armed population keeps the government in check is bull. First of all, this may have worked 200 years ago, but do you really suggest that an armed populance is a match against the weapons that a state has at its disposal? Secondly, in a democracy it is simply not necessary to resort to violent means to change the government. (I assume that the populance accepts that form of government and that the armed forces are sufficiently grounded in the society as they are in most democracies. Germany is a good counter-example to this point, although I doubt that guns would have helped 75 years ago.) Thirdly, peaceful revolutions are possible as well. There are numerous examples (India, Portugal, East Europe, etc.) in the last century that prove this point. There are also examples that an armed populance is not able to change its government through violence (Iraq in Saddam's days).
Finally, up-thread the movie Bowling For Columbine by Micheal Moore was mentioned. I know the movie is very controversial, but it argues a very important point: Although Canada has just as many guns as the US, gun-related violence is much lower in Canada. Micheal Moore explains this by saying that Americans are more fearful and thus feel the need to buy a gun for protection. In my view, this is a vicious cycle, because guns in this case don't protect you, they make it more likely to get shot. So, my suggestion would be to try to eradicate guns as much as possible, simply to take out the means by which you can get shot. Which, unfortunately, brings me to the first point, that this would be very hard in the US.
As other posters have said, those who use guns in illegal or immoral ways are not going to be restrained by gun laws.
Yes, they are, simply because it's much harder for them to get a gun. Of course, if you're trying hard to get a gun, you'll likely be successful. However, the police will also have a much better chance at catching you (either before or after the crime), because guns are rare und more regulated.
Firearms allow the weak to stand up to the strong; by making use of force less practical, they encourage discussion and peaceful behavior.
Right, threatening to use a gun is peaceful behavior and encourages discussion. There are much better ways to empower the weak.
Slashdot Mirror
quoting the gp: They're useful for drug delivery, potential gene/protein delivery devices, biomedical imaging, paints, chemical/gas sensors, etc.
nano tech != star trek
Fn-Backspace will do the trick
Even better, hit Ctrl-Apple-Power which reboots the Mac instantly (kinda like Ctrl-Alt-Del on MS-DOS).
s/schpeal/spiel/
how about... postgres?
Slightly more than 1K/s... You need to upgrade (your phone line that is)
Podcasts also have "show notes", i.e. text describing what this podcast is about. I believe this text is stored in the id3 lyrics space, not sure though. The iPod displays these show notes for podcasts.
Some podcasts even have chapter marks, although these are always in AAC. The iPod, of course, supports chapter marks in AAC files, even with a different picture for each chapter. There is a standard proposed to add chapter marks to MP3, but I'm not aware of a hardware player that supports that.
Also, the iPod remembers the last position in a podcast and starts right there, unlike a song which always start at the beginning.
So, there's "support" and then there's support.
Internet Exploder, StuffIt Expander, Acrobat Reader (blech!), ...
This is because deep down most people understand that socialism is good. Unfortunately, they're brainwashed by a greedy elite and a self-perpetuating system that capitalism is the best thing since sliced bread.
</tongue-in-check>
How can you burn karma if you have none, Anonymous Coward?
And you've never heard of strlen, right?
> You can add new tabs by opening accounts registers, reports or budgets. I don't know how else you'd like to add new tabs.
How can opening a new account register add a new tab to an already open account register window, if I have it configured to open a new window each time?
One can argue about the menu thing, some people might like it to start tasks from a register window. Personally, I find it cluttering and distracting.
Well, I should have tried this out before answering.
The entire menu showing in register windows? Plus the name of the account as a tab, even though you can't add new tabs? Windows that take 3 seconds to open and you can watch the construction of the contents which resizes the window multiple times? What is this, 1995? Moronic.
Gnucash had a somewhat confusing UI before, now the "changes" just make it worse.
Thanks, this helps a lot.
> PS I'm not going to list the many features changed or updated in this release because obviously there is so much that has changed
Like what? I was eagerly awaiting this release, mainly because GTK1 sucks on OS X (no umlauts in my experience). So far, the only changes I noticed (besides the GTK2 switch) is budgeting and closing of a financial year, both of which I haven't tried so far. Plus a dubious UI change by presenting account windows as tabs and not as real windows, meaning you can only see one account at a time. It still has the old UI bugs, my favorite being that the reports don't resize with the window and that reports are lost when you switch files. This after years of work.
You're putting words in my mouth. My central position is that I want no nation to have the bomb. My observation is that the behavior of the nations in the nuclear club is terribly unhelpful towards that goal.
One more point: Nations have no morals. Thus it makes no sense to talk about if it's morally equivalent for the US and Iran to have the bomb, that's just idle talk. Your claim that a democratic nation is somehow more right to have the bomb than other nations is ridiculous in the light of the destruction that democratic nations have brought upon our world.
Honestly, I just think it's rhetoric to whip up the masses. Kinda like George Bush always talks about the terrorists without actually doing something against them. Do you really think that the Iranian leadership would accept a nuclear retaliation by Israel as a price to pay for wiping Israel from the face of the earth? If that retaliation would include the end of their rule in Iran? I think not.
Anyway, what about Pakistan? They have the bomb and are neither peaceful nor democratic. Their chief nuclear scientist traded his knowledge on the black market, possibly helping the Iranians. Yet, so far there have been no consequences for his actions. Where's the outrage? Also, aren't you forgetting that the US is the only nation that actually used the bomb in a war? Twice! Democratic nations don't use the bomb? They also don't firebomb entire cities (Dresden, Tokyo), right? Give me a break.
It is pathetic to suggest that the US (and other nations) should be allowed to have nuclear weapons and others not, especially when the nations in the nuclear club have threatened to use the bomb against nations that don't have them (US, UK, and most recently France).
You're trolling once again, by making me choose in a false dichotomy.
To answer your questions:
a) I believe Iran is full of shit and in fact wants to aquire nuclear weapons.
b) I am troubled by this development, but not for the reasons that apparently trouble you (as a self-labeled neocon).
To flesh the second point out: I don't want to Iran to go nuclear, because it would put pressure on all regimes in the region to get the bomb as well. And further proliferation means that the chances increase, that the weapons will one day be used. Note, that Israel's safety is tangential to this issue, because I don't think that the power balance in the Middle East will fundamentaly shift in a way that puts Israel at a disadvantage, your first quote notwithstanding. (By the way, I'm Jewish.)
However, who can blame them? In the current geopolitical climate it makes very good sense for them to get the bomb. If the US (and by extension you neocons) were serious about the threat that nuclear weapons pose, you would work on non-proliferation and disarmament, as you've promised to do in treaties you've signed. But no, you just want to have the real big stick for yourself. Well, fuck that.
I only called him by his nick name (read his entire post). I thought it was funny. Now you spoiled the joke, because I had to explain it.
> You don't believe, despite their own claims to be doing so, that Iran is developing nuclear weapons.
Care to back that statement up, neocon? As far as I know, they've claimed to develop a peaceful, civil nuclear program to generate power.
Of course, nobody believes them, but then nobody believes you either.
Let's see, my iBook is my stereo (hooked to the receiver and i don't have a cd deck or anything else) and i don't own a tv.
:)
So front row is all i need for my living room media center thing. And a bigger screen. Those apple cinema screens look nice.
Observed Instances of Speciation
I concede the point that banning guns in the US would give criminals an advantage currently, because the states are so awash with guns. But that doesn't mean that this reality is set in stone and a ban would not be possible. It requires a cultural change that can easily take decades. However, the recent hostility in the US towards smoking shows that this can be done.
As to the other points:
* Guns are not an equalizer in a conflict situation, they quickly escalate it to the point that somebody gets shot. Also, I'd argue that the attacker is in a better position, because (a) he has the element of surprise and (b) he knows his gun is strong threat and thus his victim will be more likely to submit to his demands. The victim having a gun doesn't change the power balance in this situation, because it's too late for him to react. If he tries to pull his gun, he'll likely get shot. Thus the gun makes the attacker actually safer, because he knows he's in a much stronger position and thus he's more likely to attack. (I know this is over-simplified and not applicable to all situations, but it's late.)
* Also, there are various non-lethal means that can be used for self-defense (e.g. pepper sprays and stun guns).
* If you're afraid of someone intruding your home, I suggest buying good locks and insurance against burglaries. And regarding car-jackings: The only car-jackings I know of happen in Grand Theft Auto. It's simply not common-place where I live (Germany). I imagine it is quite hard to force somebody to leave his car without pointing a gun at them.
* The theory that having an armed population keeps the government in check is bull. First of all, this may have worked 200 years ago, but do you really suggest that an armed populance is a match against the weapons that a state has at its disposal? Secondly, in a democracy it is simply not necessary to resort to violent means to change the government. (I assume that the populance accepts that form of government and that the armed forces are sufficiently grounded in the society as they are in most democracies. Germany is a good counter-example to this point, although I doubt that guns would have helped 75 years ago.) Thirdly, peaceful revolutions are possible as well. There are numerous examples (India, Portugal, East Europe, etc.) in the last century that prove this point. There are also examples that an armed populance is not able to change its government through violence (Iraq in Saddam's days).
Finally, up-thread the movie Bowling For Columbine by Micheal Moore was mentioned. I know the movie is very controversial, but it argues a very important point: Although Canada has just as many guns as the US, gun-related violence is much lower in Canada. Micheal Moore explains this by saying that Americans are more fearful and thus feel the need to buy a gun for protection. In my view, this is a vicious cycle, because guns in this case don't protect you, they make it more likely to get shot. So, my suggestion would be to try to eradicate guns as much as possible, simply to take out the means by which you can get shot. Which, unfortunately, brings me to the first point, that this would be very hard in the US.
Yes, they are, simply because it's much harder for them to get a gun. Of course, if you're trying hard to get a gun, you'll likely be successful. However, the police will also have a much better chance at catching you (either before or after the crime), because guns are rare und more regulated.
Right, threatening to use a gun is peaceful behavior and encourages discussion. There are much better ways to empower the weak.