Let me rephrase the question for any who missed it: "Suppose you discover that P=NP. What is the right thing to do?" Do I cover it up, or do I release? What if I proved that P=NP, but I don't know of an algorithm to actually convert any known problem? Or, what if I did know the algorithm and the proof, and I believed that the algorithm couldn't be reconstructed from the proof -- should I release the proof?
This is definately a problematic question, one which I have also pondered often. As one reply says "spam everybody with it". Would this be a good solution? If you have an algorithm for it, or if one can be easily made from the proof, it would ruin most Internet security overnight. Would you want to cause certain chaos on the 'net, not to mention the financial consequenses (think every single bank's net-service vulnerable...)?
On the other hand, I don't think it would be right to keep it secret, because of the scientific value and because sooner or later it would be discovered.
But how can you prepare the world for such a blow? Obviously you would need to tell some people about it so preparations could be made. But to whom?
You could, of course, publicly announce that "I can prove that P=NP" and give a demonstration to some reputable people that you can solve difficult problems in reasonable time (assuming you have a working implementation). How long do you think it would take before the NSA is knocking at your door with shotguns?
As long as Microsoft holds a monopoly status in office programs, competing products must be fully compatible with Microsoft's file formats to be able to compete properly.
How significant a role do you think Microsoft's proprietary file formats play in keeping Microsoft's monopoly status?
Now what effects will the release of MS Office for Linux have? It seems like a good idea: since most businesses are standardized on MS Office, it will speed the adoption of Linux on the desktop. (This, BTW, seems to be the only major obstacle).
One more point: Do you think that if they were forced to make Office for Linux, they would stop there? Would they accept GNOME or KDE? No, they'd make a version of the Start-bar for Linux, a version of Explorer etc. and then stick a $299 (or whatever they're taking for Windows) price tag on it. Nobody would ever know the difference, except for those few who can hack their way through the Microsoft-stuff.
It would speed up the adoption of the Linux kernel, not the Linux desktops.
I don't know whether this has been posted before (I haven't seen it here), but http://www.worldtradecenter.com/ is interesting -- somebody had a good idea there.
(For the record, it redirects to http://www.redcross.org/)
When I upgraded to a Pentium-class computer, I bought an AMD PR-133 processor and thought I was getting a 133MHz processor. Only back home I discovered that it really was a 100MHz processor, which was approximately the same speed as a 133MHz Inter Penium.
I don't know have they used this trick in the meantime, but it's now totally new news.
But then again, it seems reasonable. Of course the public will only look at numbers in the name, not real benchmarks etc.
I guess somebody at the news department of one of the local TV-stations doesn't like Microsoft very much.. They ran a story about Linux's 10-year birthday party and how it is becoming a viable alternative for Windows, and directly after that a news report on how the new licensing sceme Microsoft will use will cost the cities here, was it about 0.5 billion FIM (bit under 0.1EUR).
I wonder how a conversation would go between an (adult) Hal and, say, Eliza.
And furthermore, when will computer AI be smart enough to recognize humans from other computers in a Turing test? Will that even be conceptually possible ("indistinguishable from humans" and so on)?
Is there any place where a meaningful ChangeLog is kept? Reading the individual changes isn't much of a help (many changes may have been made but what are their effect?). I'd like to have a place that explains the changes and tells which users should upgrade (eg. "SBLive support is much better, users with SBLives should upgrade" or the sort).
I once tried to find a place like this, but failed. Does it exist, and if not, why not?
Oddly, I don't see many Swedes or Finns , good socialists they are, lining up at our borders or dying to get into our country. Perhaps socialism isn't as evil as it's made out to be, or capitalism as good as it's made out to be?
Exactly. The Finnish and Swedish systems are largely based on socialism, and I feel that that's a good thing. It creates equality between the rich and the poor.
In my opinion, Communism is an ideal system, but unfortunately it just doesn't work with humans - too many temptations and corruption. That's why I'm not suggesting Communism as a governmental system, but think of the idea behind it - everybody does the same amount of work and gets the same amount of reward. (disclamer: I am not a communist, however I try to think about all ideologies objectively.)
I consider Socialism as a "milder form" of communism, and it has many benefits, but of course also negative sides. Taxes are high, and consequently also prices are high. That's one thing that is often complained about Finland. But have you every tried being sick in Finland? Medical care is extremely cheap, given to all citizens by the goverment.
In the US as I understand it, you have to pay for everything yourself or by an insurance. Those who can't afford an insurance are in a very bad situation.
(OK, nowadays after the recession a lot of cuts have been made in Finland, and many have turned to the private sector for medical care. Many complain that not enough funding is given to health care, but still you can get it. I, for instance, don't remember ever using a private hospital in Finland - and I'm not from a very poor family.
Remember, too, that our beloved Linus is from Finland, and though he lives in the US, AFAIK he has no intensions on applying for US citizenship.
Re:Random bits that are in Pi somewhere
on
Share The Pi!
·
· Score: 2
Why concentrate on just pi? If they show it's true for all trancendental numbers, they've got it for pi, e, etc.
I'd be happy with just pi for starters...;)
Furthermore, it is not true for all trancendental numbers: for example, 1/n^(1!)+1/n^(2!)+1/n^(3!)+1/n^(4!)+1/n^(5!)+...
are trancendental, but with n=10 that number has only 1's and 0's, so it's not normal.
Can pi appear in pi anywhere? I guess not, since that would mean that pi repeats. Could e be in pi? I suppose if e was in pi, and pi was in e, then pi would be in pi, which I guessed earlier it couldn't be. But, maybe I'm wrong and there's a loophole since if pi contains itself, there's an infinite recursion going on.
Pi can't appear in pi, because that would make it repeat and make it rational, which it isn't (at least the way I understand "pi in pi"). Is e in pi? Not neccessarily. These guys are trying to prove that any finite number series can be found in pi, and e is infinitely long. If it's true, then you can choose any n and you can find n digits of e in pi, but not infinitely many.
Of course, e might be in pi (though I consider that unlikely - this would mean that pi=p/q+e*10^(-n) where p, q and n are integers, which seems quite weird). But what these guys are trying to prove doesn't show that.
From this you have you choice of the following national online services:
And what about the smaller companies? Isn't this just crying for a large-company-only world? People like easy stuff, and if four companies are made much easier by putting ready icons on the desktop...
Who would get the icons there anyway? Where do you draw the line of a "major" ISP?
Those who can pay enough to Microsoft? Obviously ridiculous.
Everybody? No chance.
You quote four large "national online services", but you're forgetting Windows is a global product. The service providers in other parts of the world are very different, somewhere I'll guarentee there are no "national online services".
If it is allowed to sell a box that has only Microsoft icons, it should be allowed to sell a box with only AOL icons -- it's the consumers choise!
On the other hand, if AOL should be required to add a Microsoft icon on the desktop, then Microsoft should be required to add an AOL icon on their desktop. And if Microsoft should be required to add an AOL icon on their desktop, they should also be required to add a Columbia Internet icon.
Keyboard supports would be otherwise great (redefining and all) but you have to have image window active for them to work. Because GIMP always has that many open windows I need to spend extra time to select correct window before using shortcut...
That's a task of the window manager. In Photoshop you have to select the correct image too. Change the window manager to focus-on-click and it's (IMHO) precisely the same.
Problem with layers is that they have hard limits. Why doesn't GIMP automatically expand those limits when I draw something in the layer outside those limits?
Perhaps I want those limits (and in many cases I do)? On what area would the filters work on? I'm sure it also is much easier on resources. I admit, though, that a free area would be a nice option (so that some layers could have a free area, some a hard one).
PS. Surely you have noticed that the ugly layer limit can be turned off (along with the selection)? I usually have two views open, one in which I edit the picture (with the selections) and one with the final outcome without them.
GIMP should also remember what windows (brushes, layers etc) I had open last time and how those windows were positioned.
GIMP does this! At least in version 1.2.xx you can enable it in the config. If it's not working, make sure your window manager respects the requests. Remember that, unlike in Photoshop, the window manager is ultimately in change of the window positioning, not GIMP.
Why do you have to drill down through so many menus to do simple things? Actually finding a filter you want to apply is a major PITA too, even if you know exactly what it is called.
So many menus? How does it differ from, say, Photoshop? Instead of having the top-level menu on a toolbar, it's one click away, whereever in the image. After that, it's exactly the same, both have filters categorised in one or two sub-menus.
As for finding a filter, I believe it's the same problem in Photoshop too. (Though I haven't used it for a version or two.)
Personally I like it, though I would want it to be possible to rearrange the menus. In previous versions I edited the source to move the filters-menu to be the lowest in the list - then I could simply right-click and pull my mouse down and presto! I had the filter-menu. Nowadays I'm too lazy, so I have to take the little extra time to focus on the correct menu (note that one has to focus on toolbar-menus too).
I have a feeling that GIMP will eventually have an option to have the top-level menu in a toolbar, too.
Many keep complaining about the GIMP UI, how it's so horribly wrong (eg. the window handling). But it's not wrong, it's just different - and IMHO in many ways superior (eg. the window handling). When I first tried the GIMP (version 0.5x.xx), I was horrified. When I later tried it for an hour or two (version 0.9x.xx), I simply loved it.
No, they luckily don't use Windows. What they use instead, is truly amazing...
420,000 lines of code with just one error in it. A change of about 6000 lines of code (for GPS navigation) took 2500 pages of documentation. A good read.
I have read the HHGTG only once through (I'm not in the habit of reading a book several times), but I love it also because I can just grab any one of the books at any point in the middle and start laughing.
I read someplace that Adams himself had commented with a twinkle in his eye that in Mostly Harmless he had finally got everybody just where he wanted them: dead. But the article continued that that had never stopped Adams so far (think of the transition between Life the Universe and Everything and Restaurant at the End of the Universe). But this will definately put a period to the series. Nobody can replace Douglas Adams in the niche in which he was best.
I think I will now go and grab one of the books, though I wonder can I read it this time without tears...
One perfect example of this is "The Gimp" program, which cannot be operated from keyboard at all. None of the menus have "hotkeys", there is no keyboard shortcut to bring up "the menu", and once the menu is up, it's impossible to navigate it except using cursor keys, which is much slower than if all the menus had hotkeys assigned.
In my opinion The Gimp is very well designed. Better than to have hotkeys for the menus, every action can have user-selected hotkeys (just hold the mouse over the action and press the hotkey). If every ALT-something combination etc. was used, the program would be a lot crummier. An example: I have set the my most commonly used tools to letters on the left side of my computer. I use the mouse with my right hand (or are you suggesting painting with the keyboard?) and have my left hand on the keyboard. Then I have 90% of the stuff I need without one single menu or button click - just one keystroke away. If only the menus had hotkeys, I'd have to remember that the paintbrush is ALT-tpp (or something) instead of 'f'.
What I wonder is why this feature hasn't been made an integral part of the toolkit. In all GTK+ programs you can set the hotkeys for menu actions, but in most programs they aren't saved. As for the built-in menu hotkeys, I hate them. For instance, I can't use ALT-w (which closes a Netscape window) to close XChat, because that opens the Window-menu.
Of course, the two approaches are not totally contradictory. It should be made possible to set hotkeys for the menus too. But IMHO the Unix philosophy of being able to configure it all yourself should not be lost.
(Some have also criticised The GIMP for the multitude of windows it uses. Would it be better that The GIMP would open one huge window filling the entire screen (making you unable to do anything else on that desktop) and include a built-in window manager (which of course is not the one you would like to use) to manage the smaller windows, as is in Ph*t*sh*p and StarOffice?)
I see your point, and I'd like to clear mine a bit.
I myself am only 18 years old and in no hurry to marry or to have sex. I myself respect virginity highly, but I won't demand it from my future companions. "Marrage before sex" is a beautiful notion, but I don't see it as very common in today's world. As AC replied, I believe that the mutual life before marrage should be as near real life as possible to make a lasting marrage. So it would be perhaps the other way around: when a relationship is so deep that the partners have sex, it might be time to consider marrage. The next step from "marrage before sex" would be to try to have sex only with your future wife/husband.
Furthermore, in today's world teenagers (not all, but some) will have sex no matter what people say. In these circumstances I'd say it's a lot better to use a condom (which is nearly 100% effective, if used properly) than not to. And in this situation it's neccessary that the proper education of using contraceptives has been given early enough.
I myself wouldn't feel frightened to use a condom because of the risk involved (it's really miniscule). But I would be frightened to marry someone of whom I have no idea how they behave in bed.
(Note: I'm a Lutheran, although I don't consider myself very religious. And please don't start raging about being a nominal Christian, I have thought about it a lot and have my personal reasons.)
You have lots of good points, but I'd like to add a few comments...
As the other reply said, I believe that a moderate amount of daycare is good for children. They learn to play with each other, to cooperate and settle arguments. Parents should have a close relationship with their children, but at the age of 3-6 I'd say it's also important to have other social contacts (even without the parent around) and daycare is a good way to offer them.
... and you will never have to confiscate guns or drugs or condoms from them.
What the hell is wrong with condoms? In my opinion, safe sex is one of the most important things you should teach teenagers. Here in Finland, for instance, in the course of general education at the age of about 15-16 every boy and girl gets two condoms (one through mail along with a leaflet explaining about veneral diseases and one from the school pediatrician). It's not supposed to encourage students to use them and have sex (and I don't believe it does), instead, to show that safe sex is not a taboo and that condoms are an easy and safe way to protect from diseases if and when the time comes.
Of course, sexuality should also be discussed at home, not just at schools. At least my parents have done their part in educating and guiding me, I hope others have too.
How much education on sexuality (and I don't mean only sex) is given in schools/at home in the US? I've lived there only third grade, but from TV etc. (including posts like this) I get the feeling that in some parts safe sex is still a subject not to be discussed. Is this really so?
I figure turning the computer off is the worst thing you can do to it.
I agree.
I've had to turn off my computer for a few days twice in the last few months. Both times it got so angry with me that when I started the computer (in Linux, of course), it crashed just before giving a login prompt!
I suspect that some of my tweaked hardware doesn't like running cold (referring to temperature). When it's gotten through the fsck on the second boot (I've got several gigs to check), it always works perfectly...
Slashdot Mirror
Let me rephrase the question for any who missed it: "Suppose you discover that P=NP. What is the right thing to do?" Do I cover it up, or do I release? What if I proved that P=NP, but I don't know of an algorithm to actually convert any known problem? Or, what if I did know the algorithm and the proof, and I believed that the algorithm couldn't be reconstructed from the proof -- should I release the proof?
This is definately a problematic question, one which I have also pondered often. As one reply says "spam everybody with it". Would this be a good solution? If you have an algorithm for it, or if one can be easily made from the proof, it would ruin most Internet security overnight. Would you want to cause certain chaos on the 'net, not to mention the financial consequenses (think every single bank's net-service vulnerable...)?
On the other hand, I don't think it would be right to keep it secret, because of the scientific value and because sooner or later it would be discovered.
But how can you prepare the world for such a blow? Obviously you would need to tell some people about it so preparations could be made. But to whom?
You could, of course, publicly announce that "I can prove that P=NP" and give a demonstration to some reputable people that you can solve difficult problems in reasonable time (assuming you have a working implementation). How long do you think it would take before the NSA is knocking at your door with shotguns?
The end of the world as we knew it ended on Sept. 11. 1989
How can the end of the world end? Was the world created then or what?
(OK, I'd better go to bed before I lose too much carma...)
As long as Microsoft holds a monopoly status in office programs, competing products must be fully compatible with Microsoft's file formats to be able to compete properly.
How significant a role do you think Microsoft's proprietary file formats play in keeping Microsoft's monopoly status?
Now what effects will the release of MS Office for Linux have? It seems like a good idea: since most businesses are standardized on MS Office, it will speed the adoption of Linux on the desktop. (This, BTW, seems to be the only major obstacle).
One more point: Do you think that if they were forced to make Office for Linux, they would stop there? Would they accept GNOME or KDE? No, they'd make a version of the Start-bar for Linux, a version of Explorer etc. and then stick a $299 (or whatever they're taking for Windows) price tag on it. Nobody would ever know the difference, except for those few who can hack their way through the Microsoft-stuff.
It would speed up the adoption of the Linux kernel, not the Linux desktops.
I don't know whether this has been posted before (I haven't seen it here), but http://www.worldtradecenter.com/ is interesting -- somebody had a good idea there.
(For the record, it redirects to http://www.redcross.org/)
Actually this is not new.
When I upgraded to a Pentium-class computer, I bought an AMD PR-133 processor and thought I was getting a 133MHz processor. Only back home I discovered that it really was a 100MHz processor, which was approximately the same speed as a 133MHz Inter Penium.
I don't know have they used this trick in the meantime, but it's now totally new news.
But then again, it seems reasonable. Of course the public will only look at numbers in the name, not real benchmarks etc.
If anybody's reading this thread anymore...
I guess somebody at the news department of one of the local TV-stations doesn't like Microsoft very much.. They ran a story about Linux's 10-year birthday party and how it is becoming a viable alternative for Windows, and directly after that a news report on how the new licensing sceme Microsoft will use will cost the cities here, was it about 0.5 billion FIM (bit under 0.1EUR).
I wonder how a conversation would go between an (adult) Hal and, say, Eliza.
And furthermore, when will computer AI be smart enough to recognize humans from other computers in a Turing test? Will that even be conceptually possible ("indistinguishable from humans" and so on)?
Just a thought...
Mars is going to take care of any Spaceballs landing there... Unless, of course, they take along a CD of that awful creaking music.
Is there any place where a meaningful ChangeLog is kept? Reading the individual changes isn't much of a help (many changes may have been made but what are their effect?). I'd like to have a place that explains the changes and tells which users should upgrade (eg. "SBLive support is much better, users with SBLives should upgrade" or the sort).
I once tried to find a place like this, but failed. Does it exist, and if not, why not?
Now I know why Windows installs IIS by default! They want higher Netcraft-ratings! ;-)
Oddly, I don't see many Swedes or Finns , good socialists they are, lining up at our borders or dying to get into our country. Perhaps socialism isn't as evil as it's made out to be, or capitalism as good as it's made out to be?
Exactly. The Finnish and Swedish systems are largely based on socialism, and I feel that that's a good thing. It creates equality between the rich and the poor.
In my opinion, Communism is an ideal system, but unfortunately it just doesn't work with humans - too many temptations and corruption. That's why I'm not suggesting Communism as a governmental system, but think of the idea behind it - everybody does the same amount of work and gets the same amount of reward. (disclamer: I am not a communist, however I try to think about all ideologies objectively.)
I consider Socialism as a "milder form" of communism, and it has many benefits, but of course also negative sides. Taxes are high, and consequently also prices are high. That's one thing that is often complained about Finland. But have you every tried being sick in Finland? Medical care is extremely cheap, given to all citizens by the goverment.
In the US as I understand it, you have to pay for everything yourself or by an insurance. Those who can't afford an insurance are in a very bad situation.
(OK, nowadays after the recession a lot of cuts have been made in Finland, and many have turned to the private sector for medical care. Many complain that not enough funding is given to health care, but still you can get it. I, for instance, don't remember ever using a private hospital in Finland - and I'm not from a very poor family.
Remember, too, that our beloved Linus is from Finland, and though he lives in the US, AFAIK he has no intensions on applying for US citizenship.
Why concentrate on just pi? If they show it's true for all trancendental numbers, they've got it for pi, e, etc.
;)
I'd be happy with just pi for starters...
Furthermore, it is not true for all trancendental numbers: for example, 1/n^(1!)+1/n^(2!)+1/n^(3!)+1/n^(4!)+1/n^(5!)+...
are trancendental, but with n=10 that number has only 1's and 0's, so it's not normal.
Can pi appear in pi anywhere? I guess not, since that would mean that pi repeats. Could e be in pi? I suppose if e was in pi, and pi was in e, then pi would be in pi, which I guessed earlier it couldn't be. But, maybe I'm wrong and there's a loophole since if pi contains itself, there's an infinite recursion going on.
Pi can't appear in pi, because that would make it repeat and make it rational, which it isn't (at least the way I understand "pi in pi"). Is e in pi? Not neccessarily. These guys are trying to prove that any finite number series can be found in pi, and e is infinitely long. If it's true, then you can choose any n and you can find n digits of e in pi, but not infinitely many.
Of course, e might be in pi (though I consider that unlikely - this would mean that pi=p/q+e*10^(-n) where p, q and n are integers, which seems quite weird). But what these guys are trying to prove doesn't show that.
From this you have you choice of the following national online services:
And what about the smaller companies? Isn't this just crying for a large-company-only world? People like easy stuff, and if four companies are made much easier by putting ready icons on the desktop...
Who would get the icons there anyway? Where do you draw the line of a "major" ISP?
Those who can pay enough to Microsoft? Obviously ridiculous.
Everybody? No chance.
You quote four large "national online services", but you're forgetting Windows is a global product. The service providers in other parts of the world are very different, somewhere I'll guarentee there are no "national online services".
If it is allowed to sell a box that has only Microsoft icons, it should be allowed to sell a box with only AOL icons -- it's the consumers choise!
On the other hand, if AOL should be required to add a Microsoft icon on the desktop, then Microsoft should be required to add an AOL icon on their desktop. And if Microsoft should be required to add an AOL icon on their desktop, they should also be required to add a Columbia Internet icon.
Keyboard supports would be otherwise great (redefining and all) but you have to have image window active for them to work. Because GIMP always has that many open windows I need to spend extra time to select correct window before using shortcut...
That's a task of the window manager. In Photoshop you have to select the correct image too. Change the window manager to focus-on-click and it's (IMHO) precisely the same.
Problem with layers is that they have hard limits. Why doesn't GIMP automatically expand those limits when I draw something in the layer outside those limits?
Perhaps I want those limits (and in many cases I do)? On what area would the filters work on? I'm sure it also is much easier on resources. I admit, though, that a free area would be a nice option (so that some layers could have a free area, some a hard one).
PS. Surely you have noticed that the ugly layer limit can be turned off (along with the selection)? I usually have two views open, one in which I edit the picture (with the selections) and one with the final outcome without them.
GIMP should also remember what windows (brushes, layers etc) I had open last time and how those windows were positioned.
GIMP does this! At least in version 1.2.xx you can enable it in the config. If it's not working, make sure your window manager respects the requests. Remember that, unlike in Photoshop, the window manager is ultimately in change of the window positioning, not GIMP.
Why do you have to drill down through so many menus to do simple things? Actually finding a filter you want to apply is a major PITA too, even if you know exactly what it is called.
So many menus? How does it differ from, say, Photoshop? Instead of having the top-level menu on a toolbar, it's one click away, whereever in the image. After that, it's exactly the same, both have filters categorised in one or two sub-menus.
As for finding a filter, I believe it's the same problem in Photoshop too. (Though I haven't used it for a version or two.)
Personally I like it, though I would want it to be possible to rearrange the menus. In previous versions I edited the source to move the filters-menu to be the lowest in the list - then I could simply right-click and pull my mouse down and presto! I had the filter-menu. Nowadays I'm too lazy, so I have to take the little extra time to focus on the correct menu (note that one has to focus on toolbar-menus too).
I have a feeling that GIMP will eventually have an option to have the top-level menu in a toolbar, too.
Many keep complaining about the GIMP UI, how it's so horribly wrong (eg. the window handling). But it's not wrong, it's just different - and IMHO in many ways superior (eg. the window handling). When I first tried the GIMP (version 0.5x.xx), I was horrified. When I later tried it for an hour or two (version 0.9x.xx), I simply loved it.
Finally a chance to slashdot Slashdot!
And another use for the fish! Do they have carma caps there too?
No, they luckily don't use Windows. What they use instead, is truly amazing...
420,000 lines of code with just one error in it. A change of about 6000 lines of code (for GPS navigation) took 2500 pages of documentation. A good read.
I feel really sad about this.
I have read the HHGTG only once through (I'm not in the habit of reading a book several times), but I love it also because I can just grab any one of the books at any point in the middle and start laughing.
I read someplace that Adams himself had commented with a twinkle in his eye that in Mostly Harmless he had finally got everybody just where he wanted them: dead. But the article continued that that had never stopped Adams so far (think of the transition between Life the Universe and Everything and Restaurant at the End of the Universe). But this will definately put a period to the series. Nobody can replace Douglas Adams in the niche in which he was best.
I think I will now go and grab one of the books, though I wonder can I read it this time without tears...
Is four colors really so many?
One perfect example of this is "The Gimp" program, which cannot be operated from keyboard at all. None of the menus have "hotkeys", there is no keyboard shortcut to bring up "the menu", and once the menu is up, it's impossible to navigate it except using cursor keys, which is much slower than if all the menus had hotkeys assigned.
In my opinion The Gimp is very well designed. Better than to have hotkeys for the menus, every action can have user-selected hotkeys (just hold the mouse over the action and press the hotkey). If every ALT-something combination etc. was used, the program would be a lot crummier. An example: I have set the my most commonly used tools to letters on the left side of my computer. I use the mouse with my right hand (or are you suggesting painting with the keyboard?) and have my left hand on the keyboard. Then I have 90% of the stuff I need without one single menu or button click - just one keystroke away. If only the menus had hotkeys, I'd have to remember that the paintbrush is ALT-tpp (or something) instead of 'f'.
What I wonder is why this feature hasn't been made an integral part of the toolkit. In all GTK+ programs you can set the hotkeys for menu actions, but in most programs they aren't saved. As for the built-in menu hotkeys, I hate them. For instance, I can't use ALT-w (which closes a Netscape window) to close XChat, because that opens the Window-menu.
Of course, the two approaches are not totally contradictory. It should be made possible to set hotkeys for the menus too. But IMHO the Unix philosophy of being able to configure it all yourself should not be lost.
(Some have also criticised The GIMP for the multitude of windows it uses. Would it be better that The GIMP would open one huge window filling the entire screen (making you unable to do anything else on that desktop) and include a built-in window manager (which of course is not the one you would like to use) to manage the smaller windows, as is in Ph*t*sh*p and StarOffice?)
I guess you signed the petition first and copied the link only afterwards? ;-)
i . Otherwise you'll sign the petition as Brian Kimmel, of Wichita, KS 67203, United States.
The correct direct link would be http://www.tuxgames.com/petitions/viewpetition.cg
Or, as suggested, go to http://www.tuxgames.com/ and click on from there (there's a lot more of petitions going!).
I see your point, and I'd like to clear mine a bit.
I myself am only 18 years old and in no hurry to marry or to have sex. I myself respect virginity highly, but I won't demand it from my future companions. "Marrage before sex" is a beautiful notion, but I don't see it as very common in today's world. As AC replied, I believe that the mutual life before marrage should be as near real life as possible to make a lasting marrage. So it would be perhaps the other way around: when a relationship is so deep that the partners have sex, it might be time to consider marrage. The next step from "marrage before sex" would be to try to have sex only with your future wife/husband.
Furthermore, in today's world teenagers (not all, but some) will have sex no matter what people say. In these circumstances I'd say it's a lot better to use a condom (which is nearly 100% effective, if used properly) than not to. And in this situation it's neccessary that the proper education of using contraceptives has been given early enough.
I myself wouldn't feel frightened to use a condom because of the risk involved (it's really miniscule). But I would be frightened to marry someone of whom I have no idea how they behave in bed.
(Note: I'm a Lutheran, although I don't consider myself very religious. And please don't start raging about being a nominal Christian, I have thought about it a lot and have my personal reasons.)
You have lots of good points, but I'd like to add a few comments...
... and you will never have to confiscate guns or drugs or condoms from them.
As the other reply said, I believe that a moderate amount of daycare is good for children. They learn to play with each other, to cooperate and settle arguments. Parents should have a close relationship with their children, but at the age of 3-6 I'd say it's also important to have other social contacts (even without the parent around) and daycare is a good way to offer them.
What the hell is wrong with condoms? In my opinion, safe sex is one of the most important things you should teach teenagers. Here in Finland, for instance, in the course of general education at the age of about 15-16 every boy and girl gets two condoms (one through mail along with a leaflet explaining about veneral diseases and one from the school pediatrician). It's not supposed to encourage students to use them and have sex (and I don't believe it does), instead, to show that safe sex is not a taboo and that condoms are an easy and safe way to protect from diseases if and when the time comes.
Of course, sexuality should also be discussed at home, not just at schools. At least my parents have done their part in educating and guiding me, I hope others have too.
How much education on sexuality (and I don't mean only sex) is given in schools/at home in the US? I've lived there only third grade, but from TV etc. (including posts like this) I get the feeling that in some parts safe sex is still a subject not to be discussed. Is this really so?
I figure turning the computer off is the worst thing you can do to it.
I agree.
I've had to turn off my computer for a few days twice in the last few months. Both times it got so angry with me that when I started the computer (in Linux, of course), it crashed just before giving a login prompt!
I suspect that some of my tweaked hardware doesn't like running cold (referring to temperature). When it's gotten through the fsck on the second boot (I've got several gigs to check), it always works perfectly...