You could have a look at personal accounts (www.accountz.com) which is more streamlined than MS Money, and the new version (which I haven't used, admittedly) is cross platform (linux, windows, OS X). They do sell to the US, but I don't know what support if any there is for online banking (though, like me, you may not feel that's a useful feature). The reviews at amazon.co.uk for the previous version might be of interest.
I think it's more like running a website in the US that allowed you to remotely control the shooting of species protected in the UK. That is the actual business transaction and illegal activity is occurring on US soil (where it isn't illegal), but the customer happens to be paying from the UK. That distinction makes the gambling issue far more murky than your gun shipping suggestion (which is fairly clear cut).
Re:But does it have a useable file-save dialogue?
on
GNOME 2.16 Released
·
· Score: 1
As you brought up adobe, let me put it another way. If I'm using photoshop I might expect to use the help to find out how a tool works, how to apply certain filters and so on. I do not expect to have to use the help to find out how to make the toolbar appear on the screen. You see the difference between something that should be obvious in the interface and something that someone will expect to have to look up?
Re:But does it have a useable file-save dialogue?
on
GNOME 2.16 Released
·
· Score: 1
There is no menu bar in the file open dialog. There should be no reason to guess that certain key combinations make the dialog usable. I admit they are fairly obvious combinations, but it didn't occur to me to hit the keyboard in the hope something would work, maybe I should do that more often with OSS...
Even pressing F1 isn't really reasonable, I found out how to do it by reading here... fine, but by reading documentation I have to speculate that a feature exists, in the case of that dialog it's a feature that should simply be obvious if the interface is properly designed.
Re:But does it have a useable file-save dialogue?
on
GNOME 2.16 Released
·
· Score: 1
Genius...
Re:But does it have a useable file-save dialogue?
on
GNOME 2.16 Released
·
· Score: 1
Is that documented in any obvious way in the interface? It's not something I was aware of either...
It's strange really, I spend a lot of time on the web and didn't notice any hype at all. First thing I saw was sitting in a cinema (Superman or something) and an advert came on, all heavy going and then the voiceover said "Snakes on a Plane" and everyone in the cinema burst out laughing. It's just possible that the ads were silly enough to attract people to see exactly what the film was about. It doesn't really take a lot to get to number 1 as a film, afterall (maybe more so than a cd...).
Yeah, but at this point in time it's probably not unfair to assume that someone in the UK will have a TV licence (not all, obviously, but the failure rate on that assumption would be vanishingly low), and it's definitely not unfair to assume that someone outside does not (tourists excluded).
Equally presumably it's good policing to arrest anyone who breaks even minor laws merely on principle (jaywalking, say), rather than using any sort of discretion that keeps public opinion of you reasonably high?
You think that a law attempting to increase the chance of a fair trial is tyrannical? Should the right of the press to publish (and is it really to anyone's advantage to do so?) really override the right of a defendent to get an unbiased trial?
It's not really that English does it differently. English words are all spelt how they sound, it's just a question of which source language you try to pronounce them in.
So because a law in one field becomes irrelevent with changes in scale you assume that laws in all other fields will as well? Is it not safer to assume they do not until you have some evidence to suggest that that is the case. In the case of evolution there is much evidence to suggest that the changes in the grand scheme of things do match with the theory at the small scale, hence there is no evidence to suggest it does not work in the large scale and we should assume it does (with reservations, but that's an implicit assumption in all of science anyway).
The problem is less that our idea of a species is too broad and more that it's simply not properly defined. Species are groupings of convenience, not of genetics.
I'd love to answer your questions about this, but it's not my field, that's just some info I dug up for you because I had a rough idea where to look. Talk origins may well have more info if you're interested in searching. There are bound to be papers on it dotted around. Nature has some articles on chromosome duplication spread over the past 50 years or so.
Why are historical sciences not true sciences? Measurements can be taken, inferences drawn and predictions made. The only problem with an historical science is that one cannot set out a repeatable experiment, but then one can hardly do that in astronomy either.
Of course, evolution can be supported by experiments on the behaviour of populations on shorter timescales, and in lieu of any demonstrated restrictions on extending these results to longer timescales, maybe even saying that one cannot set out repeatable experiments is incorrect as well.
Hmm, I'm a little disappointed with the z750 too. It will, however, take good photos if you're careful with the autofocus, which is absolutely awful. The optics are pretty good.
Yes, and an agnostic atheists claims that they do not know. My point is that while someone can say they don't know, they will believe one way or the other - or at least that's how I see it.
One can easily be an agnostic atheist though. Or an agnostic theist, for that matter. I really don't understand how someone can simply be an agnostic, actually. Say a man comes up to you and says he has a coin in his pocket. Is it possible for you to balance on the fence of believing him and not believing him? Maybe, but I find it a hard thing to accept - I think my mind would naturally tend to one side or the other depending on the circumstances. You can definitely believe him but admit that you can't know for sure (agnostic...er... coinist?) or not believe him with the same statement of knowledge (agnostic acoinist, shall we say).
Personally I would say that atheist means "non-theist" and hence anyone who doesn't beleive in a god, is an atheist (and that babies are born atheists as a result of that definition). To someone applying that definition it's a perfectly reasonable position to take.
Most people I know (and I mean most, including the geeks - one ex hardcore linux user) prefer the msn client to gaim and so on. They've used gaim and similar clients, they've made the effort, and gone back to the msn client.
Ah, gotcha. No, not at all:) Selection is at the individual level, I was just misinterpreting your comment as saying that individuals themselves evolve... which as you say, is nonsense, hence species evolve.
Slashdot Mirror
You could have a look at personal accounts (www.accountz.com) which is more streamlined than MS Money, and the new version (which I haven't used, admittedly) is cross platform (linux, windows, OS X). They do sell to the US, but I don't know what support if any there is for online banking (though, like me, you may not feel that's a useful feature). The reviews at amazon.co.uk for the previous version might be of interest.
Someone else has already setup the spreadsheet and shortcuts for you :)
Really it's just a spreadsheet dedicated to a particular task that it does well. You're paying someone a little to do that setup for you.
Depends on what you work with. Try "compiling" circuits for FPGAs.
I think it's more like running a website in the US that allowed you to remotely control the shooting of species protected in the UK. That is the actual business transaction and illegal activity is occurring on US soil (where it isn't illegal), but the customer happens to be paying from the UK. That distinction makes the gambling issue far more murky than your gun shipping suggestion (which is fairly clear cut).
As you brought up adobe, let me put it another way. If I'm using photoshop I might expect to use the help to find out how a tool works, how to apply certain filters and so on. I do not expect to have to use the help to find out how to make the toolbar appear on the screen. You see the difference between something that should be obvious in the interface and something that someone will expect to have to look up?
There is no menu bar in the file open dialog. There should be no reason to guess that certain key combinations make the dialog usable. I admit they are fairly obvious combinations, but it didn't occur to me to hit the keyboard in the hope something would work, maybe I should do that more often with OSS...
Even pressing F1 isn't really reasonable, I found out how to do it by reading here... fine, but by reading documentation I have to speculate that a feature exists, in the case of that dialog it's a feature that should simply be obvious if the interface is properly designed.
Genius...
Is that documented in any obvious way in the interface? It's not something I was aware of either...
It's strange really, I spend a lot of time on the web and didn't notice any hype at all. First thing I saw was sitting in a cinema (Superman or something) and an advert came on, all heavy going and then the voiceover said "Snakes on a Plane" and everyone in the cinema burst out laughing. It's just possible that the ads were silly enough to attract people to see exactly what the film was about. It doesn't really take a lot to get to number 1 as a film, afterall (maybe more so than a cd...).
Yeah, but at this point in time it's probably not unfair to assume that someone in the UK will have a TV licence (not all, obviously, but the failure rate on that assumption would be vanishingly low), and it's definitely not unfair to assume that someone outside does not (tourists excluded).
Equally presumably it's good policing to arrest anyone who breaks even minor laws merely on principle (jaywalking, say), rather than using any sort of discretion that keeps public opinion of you reasonably high?
You think that a law attempting to increase the chance of a fair trial is tyrannical? Should the right of the press to publish (and is it really to anyone's advantage to do so?) really override the right of a defendent to get an unbiased trial?
It's not really that English does it differently. English words are all spelt how they sound, it's just a question of which source language you try to pronounce them in.
The company is not a person, it is AN entity. I'm with the Americans on this issue, "the company are" really grates.
So because a law in one field becomes irrelevent with changes in scale you assume that laws in all other fields will as well? Is it not safer to assume they do not until you have some evidence to suggest that that is the case. In the case of evolution there is much evidence to suggest that the changes in the grand scheme of things do match with the theory at the small scale, hence there is no evidence to suggest it does not work in the large scale and we should assume it does (with reservations, but that's an implicit assumption in all of science anyway).
The problem is less that our idea of a species is too broad and more that it's simply not properly defined. Species are groupings of convenience, not of genetics.
I'd love to answer your questions about this, but it's not my field, that's just some info I dug up for you because I had a rough idea where to look. Talk origins may well have more info if you're interested in searching. There are bound to be papers on it dotted around. Nature has some articles on chromosome duplication spread over the past 50 years or so.
Which fossils are you thinking of that aren't transitional?
Consider that the plants are still Coca because they are defined that way. Names of species are all just groupings based on what people saw, afterall.
As for chromosome counts changing, a quick look gives me these links.
Why are historical sciences not true sciences? Measurements can be taken, inferences drawn and predictions made. The only problem with an historical science is that one cannot set out a repeatable experiment, but then one can hardly do that in astronomy either.
Of course, evolution can be supported by experiments on the behaviour of populations on shorter timescales, and in lieu of any demonstrated restrictions on extending these results to longer timescales, maybe even saying that one cannot set out repeatable experiments is incorrect as well.
Hmm, I'm a little disappointed with the z750 too. It will, however, take good photos if you're careful with the autofocus, which is absolutely awful. The optics are pretty good.
Yes, and an agnostic atheists claims that they do not know. My point is that while someone can say they don't know, they will believe one way or the other - or at least that's how I see it.
One can easily be an agnostic atheist though. Or an agnostic theist, for that matter. I really don't understand how someone can simply be an agnostic, actually. Say a man comes up to you and says he has a coin in his pocket. Is it possible for you to balance on the fence of believing him and not believing him? Maybe, but I find it a hard thing to accept - I think my mind would naturally tend to one side or the other depending on the circumstances. You can definitely believe him but admit that you can't know for sure (agnostic...er... coinist?) or not believe him with the same statement of knowledge (agnostic acoinist, shall we say).
Personally I would say that atheist means "non-theist" and hence anyone who doesn't beleive in a god, is an atheist (and that babies are born atheists as a result of that definition). To someone applying that definition it's a perfectly reasonable position to take.
You clearly missed the point of posting an anecdote to make exactly the point you posted about.
Most people I know (and I mean most, including the geeks - one ex hardcore linux user) prefer the msn client to gaim and so on. They've used gaim and similar clients, they've made the effort, and gone back to the msn client.
I'm not really sure why... but that is the case.
Ah, gotcha. No, not at all :) Selection is at the individual level, I was just misinterpreting your comment as saying that individuals themselves evolve... which as you say, is nonsense, hence species evolve.