for the third time, "your wrong way attitude" is not what I'm saying - for the third time, you haven't paid attention. Probably, just like all the others who talk to you about the philosophy and seem to get frustrated, you just refuse to get it - I can see you with your hands crossed and a smug look. I don't really care about your issues. You love photoshop, it does you - that's whizzo. Just becasue it may be a waste of money does not stop you. You claim to have \ things you can do with Photoshop that you can't do with GIMP or CinePaint. That's grand for you.
The sense of community you mock and belittle is why I am frustrated. The reality of which tools is most appropriate is down to the individuals choice, they are tools. - you seem to think I am trying to sway your use of tools . I'm merely trying to get you to see that many people don't care that one is a better at this than that one, they know that GIMP is part of the free software movement, which combines with all their other tools that make a computer free and useful. I would rather work on GIMP if really had to rather than pay for Photoshop. That's my choice.
We are both free-thinking, but you must pay money to Adobe for your free-thoughts
You'd love for me to be right ?
My advice is learn what these types of statements are about. - you miss many things, that is the truth. You have on many occassion tried to redefine my argument. Your argument style is one of win-lose, which is why you can always win when the right answer is we both choose. I don't speak for you, but you try to speak for me. Speak for yourself.
It was late at night when I misread "Heh. Boy" to be "Hey, boy" - I do think you're condescending attitude with everything else though shows that I do not want to know you. We have both invested too much time in this already. I'm a Kubuntu user now after many years of debian, I'm going to try our ArtistX thanks to you, since I know for certain there will be more freedom in that package than you could ever possibly comprehend - you may even end up using this stuff yourself as you say, but you still won't get it.
I'm tired of your whining, you made your case and you know how we both feel, although you may want to redefine my argument again, I just don't care anymore.
It's fun to dream that we'll all hold hands with a rainbow glimmering over our heads ?
suddenly every Hollywood machine in existence ?
I'm wrong for not thinking your way ?
What a load of horse shit.
It tries really hard to be Photoshop ?
This is the last time I'm going to say this, Photoshop is the market leader, not the market.
Its quite simple, its mostly gone over your head. I will use gimp, you can use photoshop. Now go away and use photoshop, go on... off you go... Adobe awaits... boy!
If you come back, repeat the same BS and I will know you havn't learned a thing.
Every project for you is a new challenge defined by photoshop - you are a pure user that does not even want to be a part of the software cycle, if you did, you would work for adobe or wake up to gimp.
Your assumption that I have a fixed set of needs is more appicable to someone who is forced to be a new user - you have no option with photoshop but to trust those who write the software to improve it the way you like - and your statement about the new movies shows how with a commercial paradigm, demand follows supply.
Now if you are concerned with 3d modelling and movies, Linux is the king - licensing forced the hand to make a swarm of render bots practical
If you do have an original idea to do with imaging software, I state again that modifying gimp is your best option becasue its OSS, therefore, playing catch-up only applies to the ideas the adobe provide, The gimp will continue to attain both as supply creates demand and if hollywood changes its mind as many have already with respect to 3d rendering, then they will pay for extensions to gimp because it will be cheaper and faster.
If Adobe is the centre of your universe then all of this will go straight over your head anyway.
Its not arrogance to think for yourself, especially if you give it away for free.
This life you say that is so elusive, is what many people are busy doing whilst you are busy trying to convince yourself.
You point to OSS as if its merely an alternative, like new ideas only come about by force.
Let's make a deal, we both stop talking for others and realise what's best for ourselves. I really don't need forced ideas, just like most of the world apparently doesn't need faster computers. I have a PRO standard digital camera that I can do everything I need with OSS and more - these standards were not defined by photoshop, they evolved through the needs of users. It may be the market leader but it is not the market itself. Both commercial and OSS paradigms achieve improved quality software over time, difference is, my opinion counts in OSS more directly - If I feel that photoshop is not meeting my needs, I can always modify gimp - that's why its not a clone.
The OSS paradigm probably benefits smart users most, but actually it benefits users who prefer to think for themselves.
Yeah, like Windows has network administration and web serving tools.
That's a fair point, they are not mature, although Inkscape is quite usable for SVGs now
...why are you using Windows anyway ?
Because it is the de-facto standard and all of
my clients, bosses, and so on require it
Someday soon, someone will come in and say "I can do this job without the license fee" - and they will have the edge.
Besides that, if I switched to Linux, I'd no longer be able to do my job. (Again, that's due to de-facto market reasons, not for technical reasons. Linux would be better suited if more effort was put into the end-user experience.)
If you value your collection of images, store them on a real OS.
Several reasons:
a.) Windows is not really the charicature that Slashdot has made it out to be.
b.) A 'real OS' doesn't mean jack shit if the software I use doesn't run on it.
I'm sorry, your filesystem is corrupt Windows now runs like a snail on valium, could be a virus or maybe you just havn't re-installed for a month. Files ? I think some of them are ok...
c.) Linux ain't so faptastic, either. I would be far better off with a Mac than a Linux box.
For photoshop, that was true for years, things are changing though and the direction is certain.
d.) Linux and GIMP's 'free' price tag would actually cost me a considerable amount of money. I'll concede though that I don't represent the masses because I use tools like Photoshop to make a living.
Does that make you feel special ? oh good. I think you are implying you can't be cost effective in your job with the Gimp because of its quality. Some guy walks in, says he can do it because the software *is* sufficient in the rights hands and bang - you can no longer feel special buying things simply for the feel of the pricetag.
Gimp is perfect for importing raw images, getting the right color balance and dynamic range. Once you have the best image you can get, you can play with it - quickly select regions and zones, layer them, manipulate perspective - choose filters for each zone - fuzz selection.
Considering the philosophy of the OS, its not surprising that a million and one people are trying to sell you shareware for that tool you need instead of trying to help you find the best free solution - It took me a while to realise that if I want to do anything with windows, I should search open source first. That's why windows is a toy, it doesn't support open source, so the best tool for the job runs natively on linux.
I can't really blame you, I realise its mostly accurate. I would like to say that even if you don't believe 100% trust is ever possible, the only way 100% trust can succeed is if both partners have it. That's means its entirely possible that by merely believing that you should never let yourself totally go, you can create the inevitable downfall.
I do not wish to attack string theory because it is currently untestable - my attack is based on the fact that it makes no claims to be testable - its like each additional dimension defined is an addendum to and addendum to try and keep up with any math that is inconsistent with current theory and practice. It is logically flawed in its attempt to unify the forces via mathematical expansion. If anyone finds a flaw, just add a dimension - its an insult to the valued work that has given us modern physics.
My hypothesis that time is no dimension is tied to developing a good understanding of what lead to general relativity - the philosophy that implies it and the results of this on understanding time. If you understand that the lack of a euclidean 3 dimensional space that holds for our universe is tied to the fact that the frame itself cannot be static and results in our perception of time, you should also know that it is intractable in any euclidean geometry with any number of dimensions. This is a philosophical point, not a mathematical one.
The reason for something very like general relativity or the exact theory itself being true are based on inescapable philosophical principles similar to that of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. To imply that space with n dimensions has some existence orthogonal to time is a fallacy because it would destroy the concept of causality. The evidence for causality being a strong universal trait is just too overwhelming to ignore.
From this, causality itself implies that our euclidean math cannot apply directly to reality regardless of the number of dimensions - the problem is one of intractable math from a flawed assumption that means string theory is a waste of time.
No one deserves a nobel prize for trying to understand Einstein.
Quantum and relativity do not contradict each other. The Heisenberg principle designates a philosophical boundry on observations based on the fact that an observer is to some degree a part of what is being observed - any real observer must be in any universe, hence it is philosophical. This boundry allows for 2 different types of math to be directly applicable in the near field and in the far field.
I mentioned relativity has the answer to your problem concerning time.
You then claim I am a hyprocrite without any basis at all.
I guess that means I don't need a basis to call you a moron.
String theory postulates a mathematical solution that involves going well beyond 4 dimensions in order to combine the realms of quantum and relativity. Neither quantum nor relativity require these extra dimensions to be testable.
Adding dimensions is a redundant, untestable solution, given that what some of us trying to do is come up with the principles that govern both quantum and relativity combined with an understanding of gravity without adding redundant information,
it really is the principles or axiomatic theory that needs work, if anything - many are happy to accept that trying to unify these realms could well be a waste of time, since our understanding of them without unification is extremely useful.
The problem I have is that I think string theory doesn't understand the nature of time at all - By adding dimensions, it treats time as if it is a dimension. There appears to be some good work coming out recently that has accepted that time is not a dimension at all, this work is a lot closer to unifying our currently accepted and testable theories. Its general relativity that leads to time not being a dimension - I will never favour a solution that just needs to have some variables added or adjusted to fit any inconsistent data - the theory also protects itself as much as possible from having to add more variables, because there could never be any way to test the additional information anyway. Its already mathematically beyond the scope of most human understanding, and provides us with nothing we don't know already ready about the nature of the universe.
Because it lacks an understanding of time that fits our accepted models, it looks to me like it could never be correct without adding more information to the whole experiment.
its solution is brute force on rather shaky principles and therefore only interesting to mathematicians.
You don't need a nobel prize to know that throwing more math at a problem is merely fund raising.
You stated a paradox. It sounds as if you are supporting the notion that to come up with an inherently unprovable theory and show that it is unprovable is somehow similar to proving that a given theory cannot apply to reality because it is a paradox. That may seem confusing, but the difference is clear, eliminating a theory that is held to be plausible is different to undergoing the creation of a theory that is unprovable by design.
To confuse the 2 ideas shows to me that someone who creates an untouchable, unverifiable theory that adds nothing to what we observe in reality and only complicates the picture in order to bring all axioms together, should not be called a scientist, more a science fiction writer.
expanding axioms out is what the universe does, physics is trying to define the minimal set of consistent axioms that describe the universe in a completely testable way - anything untestable is irrelevant to anything other than immagination.
If they called it math, then I think it deserves funding - string theory has no place muddying up physics by trying to provide an expansive solution to a problem where only more minimalist encompassing theories are of any use.
You expect money for not being testable ? that's called welfare, if string theorists stopped lying about what it is they want, then I might be more sympathetic
It's become very popular these days to bash string theory, yet noone has an alternative.
If any 1 person has a theory on their own that is inherently unprovable, that person will be labelled a crackpot and rightly so.
Have a whole community do the same thing and apparently that makes it good science - it isn't. never will be. Its redundant. There are many alternatives from serious individuals that have already come a lot closer, simply because they are trying to add to our knowledge by reducing the static information level of our best universe axioms - simply adding more complexity is what the dynamic universe itself is for - its not a useful theory unless it describes something other than itself that cannot already be described with simpler, more useful theories.
I can understand to a degree that many string theorists have gone down this path, mostly because its difficult for any 1 person to keep track of the sum of knowledge in physics these days - there is no doubt in my mind, modern physicists need some basic philosophy before they can theorise about anything - adding invisible layers is a salespersons job, not a scientist.
Slashdot Mirror
When I say "The OSS paradigm probably benefits smart users most, but actually it benefits users who prefer to think for themselves."
The use of the word actually negates the use of the word smart, you don't need to be a genius to get it.
Now correct yourself on this point, and I will procede to destroy your others.
for the third time, "your wrong way attitude" is not what I'm saying - for the third time, you haven't paid attention. Probably, just like all the others who talk to you about the philosophy and seem to get frustrated, you just refuse to get it - I can see you with your hands crossed and a smug look. I don't really care about your issues. You love photoshop, it does you - that's whizzo. Just becasue it may be a waste of money does not stop you. You claim to have \ things you can do with Photoshop that you can't do with GIMP or CinePaint. That's grand for you.
The sense of community you mock and belittle is why I am frustrated. The reality of which tools is most appropriate is down to the individuals choice, they are tools. - you seem to think I am trying to sway your use of tools . I'm merely trying to get you to see that many people don't care that one is a better at this than that one, they know that GIMP is part of the free software movement, which combines with all their other tools that make a computer free and useful. I would rather work on GIMP if really had to rather than pay for Photoshop. That's my choice.
We are both free-thinking, but you must pay money to Adobe for your free-thoughts
You'd love for me to be right ?
My advice is learn what these types of statements are about. - you miss many things, that is the truth. You have on many occassion tried to redefine my argument. Your argument style is one of win-lose, which is why you can always win when the right answer is we both choose. I don't speak for you, but you try to speak for me. Speak for yourself.
It was late at night when I misread "Heh. Boy" to be "Hey, boy" - I do think you're condescending attitude with everything else though shows that I do not want to know you. We have both invested too much time in this already. I'm a Kubuntu user now after many years of debian, I'm going to try our ArtistX thanks to you, since I know for certain there will be more freedom in that package than you could ever possibly comprehend - you may even end up using this stuff yourself as you say, but you still won't get it.
I'm tired of your whining, you made your case and you know how we both feel, although you may want to redefine my argument again, I just don't care anymore.
Hey boy ?
It's fun to dream that we'll all hold hands with a rainbow glimmering over our heads ?
suddenly every Hollywood machine in existence ?
I'm wrong for not thinking your way ?
What a load of horse shit.
It tries really hard to be Photoshop ?
This is the last time I'm going to say this, Photoshop is the market leader, not the market.
Its quite simple, its mostly gone over your head. I will use gimp, you can use photoshop. Now go away and use photoshop, go on... off you go... Adobe awaits... boy!
If you come back, repeat the same BS and I will know you havn't learned a thing.
MobileTatsu-NJG:
One more thing... Why don't you do a search for "Linux Hollywood Gimp" just to see how wrong and outdated you are.
You have completely missed the point.
Every project for you is a new challenge defined by photoshop - you are a pure user that does not even want to be a part of the software cycle, if you did, you would work for adobe or wake up to gimp.
Your assumption that I have a fixed set of needs is more appicable to someone who is forced to be a new user - you have no option with photoshop but to trust those who write the software to improve it the way you like - and your statement about the new movies shows how with a commercial paradigm, demand follows supply.
Now if you are concerned with 3d modelling and movies, Linux is the king - licensing forced the hand to make a swarm of render bots practical
If you do have an original idea to do with imaging software, I state again that modifying gimp is your best option becasue its OSS, therefore, playing catch-up only applies to the ideas the adobe provide, The gimp will continue to attain both as supply creates demand and if hollywood changes its mind as many have already with respect to 3d rendering, then they will pay for extensions to gimp because it will be cheaper and faster.
If Adobe is the centre of your universe then all of this will go straight over your head anyway.
Its not arrogance to think for yourself, especially if you give it away for free.
This life you say that is so elusive, is what many people are busy doing whilst you are busy trying to convince yourself.
You point to OSS as if its merely an alternative, like new ideas only come about by force.
Let's make a deal, we both stop talking for others and realise what's best for ourselves. I really don't need forced ideas, just like most of the world apparently doesn't need faster computers. I have a PRO standard digital camera that I can do everything I need with OSS and more - these standards were not defined by photoshop, they evolved through the needs of users. It may be the market leader but it is not the market itself. Both commercial and OSS paradigms achieve improved quality software over time, difference is, my opinion counts in OSS more directly - If I feel that photoshop is not meeting my needs, I can always modify gimp - that's why its not a clone.
The OSS paradigm probably benefits smart users most, but actually it benefits users who prefer to think for themselves.
Linux has drawing tools...
Yeah, like Windows has network administration and web serving tools.
That's a fair point, they are not mature, although Inkscape is quite usable for SVGs now
...why are you using Windows anyway ?
Because it is the de-facto standard and all of my clients, bosses, and so on require it
Someday soon, someone will come in and say "I can do this job without the license fee" - and they will have the edge.
Besides that, if I switched to Linux, I'd no longer be able to do my job. (Again, that's due to de-facto market reasons, not for technical reasons. Linux would be better suited if more effort was put into the end-user experience.)
If you value your collection of images, store them on a real OS.
Several reasons:
a.) Windows is not really the charicature that Slashdot has made it out to be. b.) A 'real OS' doesn't mean jack shit if the software I use doesn't run on it.
I'm sorry, your filesystem is corrupt Windows now runs like a snail on valium, could be a virus or maybe you just havn't re-installed for a month. Files ? I think some of them are ok...
c.) Linux ain't so faptastic, either. I would be far better off with a Mac than a Linux box.
For photoshop, that was true for years, things are changing though and the direction is certain.
d.) Linux and GIMP's 'free' price tag would actually cost me a considerable amount of money. I'll concede though that I don't represent the masses because I use tools like Photoshop to make a living.
Does that make you feel special ? oh good. I think you are implying you can't be cost effective in your job with the Gimp because of its quality. Some guy walks in, says he can do it because the software *is* sufficient in the rights hands and bang - you can no longer feel special buying things simply for the feel of the pricetag.
Linux has drawing tools, why are you using Windows anyway ? If you value your collection of images, store them on a real OS.
You're not 3.
Gimp is perfect for importing raw images, getting the right color balance and dynamic range. Once you have the best image you can get, you can play with it - quickly select regions and zones, layer them, manipulate perspective - choose filters for each zone - fuzz selection.
The list goes on.
No.
You would pay a riduclous amount of money.
Others have woken up.
As if cost isn't a factor...
I don't care how good it is, I want to use something other people pay for!
Considering the philosophy of the OS, its not surprising that a million and one people are trying to sell you shareware for that tool you need instead of trying to help you find the best free solution - It took me a while to realise that if I want to do anything with windows, I should search open source first. That's why windows is a toy, it doesn't support open source, so the best tool for the job runs natively on linux.
People were saying this 8 years ago.
I just want to add that these "things" are not like any "things" on earth like atoms or such.
Flanders was a Zombie ?
Man, you are cynical.
I can't really blame you, I realise its mostly accurate. I would like to say that even if you don't believe 100% trust is ever possible, the only way 100% trust can succeed is if both partners have it. That's means its entirely possible that by merely believing that you should never let yourself totally go, you can create the inevitable downfall.
Food for thought.
I do not wish to attack string theory because it is currently untestable - my attack is based on the fact that it makes no claims to be testable - its like each additional dimension defined is an addendum to and addendum to try and keep up with any math that is inconsistent with current theory and practice. It is logically flawed in its attempt to unify the forces via mathematical expansion. If anyone finds a flaw, just add a dimension - its an insult to the valued work that has given us modern physics.
My hypothesis that time is no dimension is tied to developing a good understanding of what lead to general relativity - the philosophy that implies it and the results of this on understanding time. If you understand that the lack of a euclidean 3 dimensional space that holds for our universe is tied to the fact that the frame itself cannot be static and results in our perception of time, you should also know that it is intractable in any euclidean geometry with any number of dimensions. This is a philosophical point, not a mathematical one.
The reason for something very like general relativity or the exact theory itself being true are based on inescapable philosophical principles similar to that of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. To imply that space with n dimensions has some existence orthogonal to time is a fallacy because it would destroy the concept of causality. The evidence for causality being a strong universal trait is just too overwhelming to ignore.
From this, causality itself implies that our euclidean math cannot apply directly to reality regardless of the number of dimensions - the problem is one of intractable math from a flawed assumption that means string theory is a waste of time.
No one deserves a nobel prize for trying to understand Einstein.
No, I'm not giving you any money.
Quantum and relativity do not contradict each other. The Heisenberg principle designates a philosophical boundry on observations based on the fact that an observer is to some degree a part of what is being observed - any real observer must be in any universe, hence it is philosophical. This boundry allows for 2 different types of math to be directly applicable in the near field and in the far field.
I mentioned relativity has the answer to your problem concerning time.
You then claim I am a hyprocrite without any basis at all.
I guess that means I don't need a basis to call you a moron.
String theory postulates a mathematical solution that involves going well beyond 4 dimensions in order to combine the realms of quantum and relativity. Neither quantum nor relativity require these extra dimensions to be testable.
Adding dimensions is a redundant, untestable solution, given that what some of us trying to do is come up with the principles that govern both quantum and relativity combined with an understanding of gravity without adding redundant information,
it really is the principles or axiomatic theory that needs work, if anything - many are happy to accept that trying to unify these realms could well be a waste of time, since our understanding of them without unification is extremely useful.
The problem I have is that I think string theory doesn't understand the nature of time at all - By adding dimensions, it treats time as if it is a dimension. There appears to be some good work coming out recently that has accepted that time is not a dimension at all, this work is a lot closer to unifying our currently accepted and testable theories. Its general relativity that leads to time not being a dimension - I will never favour a solution that just needs to have some variables added or adjusted to fit any inconsistent data - the theory also protects itself as much as possible from having to add more variables, because there could never be any way to test the additional information anyway. Its already mathematically beyond the scope of most human understanding, and provides us with nothing we don't know already ready about the nature of the universe.
Because it lacks an understanding of time that fits our accepted models, it looks to me like it could never be correct without adding more information to the whole experiment.
its solution is brute force on rather shaky principles and therefore only interesting to mathematicians.
You don't need a nobel prize to know that throwing more math at a problem is merely fund raising.
You stated a paradox. It sounds as if you are supporting the notion that to come up with an inherently unprovable theory and show that it is unprovable is somehow similar to proving that a given theory cannot apply to reality because it is a paradox. That may seem confusing, but the difference is clear, eliminating a theory that is held to be plausible is different to undergoing the creation of a theory that is unprovable by design.
To confuse the 2 ideas shows to me that someone who creates an untouchable, unverifiable theory that adds nothing to what we observe in reality and only complicates the picture in order to bring all axioms together, should not be called a scientist, more a science fiction writer.
expanding axioms out is what the universe does, physics is trying to define the minimal set of consistent axioms that describe the universe in a completely testable way - anything untestable is irrelevant to anything other than immagination.
If they called it math, then I think it deserves funding - string theory has no place muddying up physics by trying to provide an expansive solution to a problem where only more minimalist encompassing theories are of any use.
whatever it is , its verifiable, it has more reality than any string theory.
You expect money for not being testable ? that's called welfare, if string theorists stopped lying about what it is they want, then I might be more sympathetic
It's become very popular these days to bash string theory, yet noone has an alternative.
If any 1 person has a theory on their own that is inherently unprovable, that person will be labelled a crackpot and rightly so.
Have a whole community do the same thing and apparently that makes it good science - it isn't. never will be. Its redundant. There are many alternatives from serious individuals that have already come a lot closer, simply because they are trying to add to our knowledge by reducing the static information level of our best universe axioms - simply adding more complexity is what the dynamic universe itself is for - its not a useful theory unless it describes something other than itself that cannot already be described with simpler, more useful theories.
I can understand to a degree that many string theorists have gone down this path, mostly because its difficult for any 1 person to keep track of the sum of knowledge in physics these days - there is no doubt in my mind, modern physicists need some basic philosophy before they can theorise about anything - adding invisible layers is a salespersons job, not a scientist.