Athiesm taken to its logical conclusion has no respect in the dignity of humnanity. Those of faith believe that we are 'endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights'. Atheism says that 'inalienable rights' don't exist.
Where do you get the idea that atheism says the rights don't exist? Those of faith believe that the rights are endowed by the Creator; atheists believe the rights are innate.
If you take atheism to its logical conclusion, all you get is there's no God. Anything else you get out of there is supposition.
With electrons, you can formulate & conduct an experiment with reproducable results that reinforces the theory. You can't do that with God. Those experiments are the evidence that God doesn't have.
And atheism is NOT a religion. You're using the term far too loosely. Religions need rituals, a community of followers... None of which atheism has. They need a belief/system/, which atheism doesn't have. It merely has a condition.
There's a big difference between someone who believes that the sun exists, and a devotee of a solar cult.
Linux was started before FreeBSD, this is how the age of something is measured.
Maybe with software, but with people you generally calculate the age based on the release date, not when the developers started working on the project.
I am aware of that. That's why I put that comment in an aside. It's an important point that's usually ignored when his "proof" is discussed.
Especially as how the word "God" is such a loaded term; it's usually assumed to have a pretty specific meaning. And many (if not most) of the attributes associated with God are not necessarily required (or even implied) by Aquinas's proof.
I'd have to pick GTA3 as the most innovative title in a while; if the freeform world was a genre before GTA3, it had never actually been realized in a game yet. Unfortunately, Rockstar saw the dollars from their creativity, rather than the POTENTIAL for more new titles, and is currently farming the golden eggs. Perhaps this is the problem? A company comes along, creates their breakthrough title, then gets stuck in a vicious cycle of sequel-lock.
I think you're being a bit too hard on Rockstar. GTA3 really was something new and different. I wouldn't call the two sequels "a vicious cycle of sequel-lock", but expanding on & refining an idea. Each one made pretty big advancements, and not just in graphics! but in gameplay.
Eh, it doesn't matter anyways. We'll probably have chemical or electrical or surgical induced pure euphoria before we get another groundbreaking game from this dying market.
And come on, how can you say that & forget the poster-child for Innovation's Not Dead -- Katamari Damacy?
>He then argues that this cannot go on into infinity, for if it did, >nothing could actually exist because there would be no prime >mover to have set everything in motion.
No, you got it wrong. It cannot NOT go on into infinity. Going on forever quite easily solves the problem, because there's always something to act & cause the reaction.
If the Universe is/finite/, you need something to break the rules, which is what Aquinas does. And he does that with God.
All of Aquinas's proofs boil down to that (well, that I remember, at least): he creates a situation that sounds logically impossible to resolve rationally, and thus creates the need to resort to an Actor who doesn't have to play by any rules. Problem solved. The Universe is allowed to exist again.
(oh, and another problem that no one ever seems to address: let's assume, for now, that his arguments are in fact logically sound. Irrefutably so. He never offers any argument to convince us that what he calls "God" is, in fact, anything at all like what we traditionally consider Him. The only requirement is that it doesn't obverve certain laws of physics or other rules of the Universe that we know. It could be a giant unicorn. Or an Infinite Improbability Drive. Or a peculiar, unknown class of matter, like dark matter, with properties that don't follow the laws of physics as we understand them.)
He said graphic designers, not artists. So I dunno about the berets, but he's probably right about the lattes.;) Designers tend to make quite a bit more money than artists.
And for the record, some artists = designers, and some designers = artists. But they're not the same thing.
You can drag & drop text to & from pretty much any window, and the desktop, in OS X. I just tried dragging a selection from XCode into a text editor, and it workd. Dragging text into an XCode window works just as well. Most other apps support it, too.
You're right, but over-simplifying a bit & missing important distinctions. Yes, software can be art -- look at the demo scene, runme.org, and obfuscated code. Those are all one artist's (or group of artists') vision. They're art. And to a lesser extent, even the code to a text editor can very well have artful touches in it (but chances are it's not going to be apparent in the executable).
And likewise, some "art" can have functional / practical aspects, and can be improved on, in a similar manner to the way software (and Free software) can -- but this kind of art is more properly called/design/.
Exactly. Even though there are actually several things about the GIMP I prefer to Photoshop, Photoshop will never be able to compete w/the GIMP in the price department. I'm on a Mac, so if the "port to Linux" argument was a valid one, I'd be using Photoshop for my image editing.
Though of course, likewise the GIMP isn't going to be competing with Photoshop in the professional sector. This discussion is full of valid arguments supporting that.
Everyone's saying no, but it seems to me that this camera might make the process of photogrammetry (generating 3D models from a series of 2D images) a lot easier.
I definitely appreciate what you're saying -- but that's not what I was asking.
I wasn't asking how to become a good 3D modeller -- I don't really want to do that. I appreciate the value of practice, but if I'm going to spend a lot of time practicing, I'd rather continue to practice my 2D skills, because that's what I enjoy; that's what I do.
But there are times when I'd like to be able to create a 3D model -- nothing more than dabbling, mind you; it doesn't need to be great. I don't want to waste the time necessary to learn 3D modelling software. They don't work the way I do. What I was asking if anybody knew of a 3D modeller that/did/ work the way I do -- something that works like a drawing/painting program.
Or even better -- something that could actually work from scanned paper sketches. I'd looked into photogrammetry software a while back -- http://www.photomodeler.com/ is the closest I've found, but it's too expensive/and/ windows-only... So I'm pretty much out of luck on that one.
Oh yeah, I'd played around with Teddy a while back -- only the web-module, so I couldn't save, and I don't have a tablet (and can't draw with a mouse), so I'd forgotten about it.
However rought it was at the time, though, it's definitely the best (for me) interface for 3D modelling. With some refinement it could be really great -- maybe Shade has the refinement I'm looking for. I'll have to check it out.
See, if they were any brand other than Converse, I would have been bothered by that. But Converse, in my experience, has that "'cool' factor" - I've/seen/ people in real life do that. People who only wear Converse. They love their shoes, and are proud of them. Occurs often, with people and jackets, too.
I'm not saying it wasn't blatant product placement; I'm just saying that it's not as unnatural as some people seem to think.
I haven't checked the documentation lately, so maybe things have gotten better...
But it was awful hard to get the hang of Blender in the first place, what with the documentation not being current. And a lot of the features just weren't documented. Not having up-to-date documentation/is/ a valid concern. It makes learning (especially something as complicated and confusing as blender) a lot harder than it needs to be.
Killing every human wouldn't work. Pretty much every other animal would have to go, too. (cows, as an obvious example, produce a lot of methane - a greenhouse gas). And then the plants, too, b/c who knows what wd happen when the earth's atmosphere was oversaturated with oxygen?
Slashdot Mirror
Athiesm taken to its logical conclusion has no respect in the dignity of humnanity. Those of faith believe that we are 'endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights'. Atheism says that 'inalienable rights' don't exist. Where do you get the idea that atheism says the rights don't exist? Those of faith believe that the rights are endowed by the Creator; atheists believe the rights are innate. If you take atheism to its logical conclusion, all you get is there's no God. Anything else you get out of there is supposition.
With electrons, you can formulate & conduct an experiment with reproducable results that reinforces the theory. You can't do that with God. Those experiments are the evidence that God doesn't have.
/system/, which atheism doesn't have. It merely has a condition.
And atheism is NOT a religion. You're using the term far too loosely. Religions need rituals, a community of followers... None of which atheism has. They need a belief
There's a big difference between someone who believes that the sun exists, and a devotee of a solar cult.
Linux was started before FreeBSD, this is how the age of something is measured.
Maybe with software, but with people you generally calculate the age based on the release date, not when the developers started working on the project.
I am aware of that. That's why I put that comment in an aside. It's an important point that's usually ignored when his "proof" is discussed.
Especially as how the word "God" is such a loaded term; it's usually assumed to have a pretty specific meaning. And many (if not most) of the attributes associated with God are not necessarily required (or even implied) by Aquinas's proof.
We don't know that for sure. But to clarify, given the question, I meant /temporally/ finite, not spatially.
I'd have to pick GTA3 as the most innovative title in a while; if the freeform world was a genre before GTA3, it had never actually been realized in a game yet. Unfortunately, Rockstar saw the dollars from their creativity, rather than the POTENTIAL for more new titles, and is currently farming the golden eggs. Perhaps this is the problem? A company comes along, creates their breakthrough title, then gets stuck in a vicious cycle of sequel-lock.
I think you're being a bit too hard on Rockstar. GTA3 really was something new and different. I wouldn't call the two sequels "a vicious cycle of sequel-lock", but expanding on & refining an idea. Each one made pretty big advancements, and not just in graphics! but in gameplay.
Eh, it doesn't matter anyways. We'll probably have chemical or electrical or surgical induced pure euphoria before we get another groundbreaking game from this dying market.
And come on, how can you say that & forget the poster-child for Innovation's Not Dead -- Katamari Damacy?
>He then argues that this cannot go on into infinity, for if it did,
/finite/, you need something to break the rules, which is what Aquinas does. And he does that with God.
>nothing could actually exist because there would be no prime
>mover to have set everything in motion.
No, you got it wrong. It cannot NOT go on into infinity. Going on forever quite easily solves the problem, because there's always something to act & cause the reaction.
If the Universe is
All of Aquinas's proofs boil down to that (well, that I remember, at least): he creates a situation that sounds logically impossible to resolve rationally, and thus creates the need to resort to an Actor who doesn't have to play by any rules. Problem solved. The Universe is allowed to exist again.
(oh, and another problem that no one ever seems to address: let's assume, for now, that his arguments are in fact logically sound. Irrefutably so. He never offers any argument to convince us that what he calls "God" is, in fact, anything at all like what we traditionally consider Him. The only requirement is that it doesn't obverve certain laws of physics or other rules of the Universe that we know. It could be a giant unicorn. Or an Infinite Improbability Drive. Or a peculiar, unknown class of matter, like dark matter, with properties that don't follow the laws of physics as we understand them.)
If it uses the IE rendering engine, doesn't that mean it's NOT standards-compliant?
He said graphic designers, not artists. So I dunno about the berets, but he's probably right about the lattes. ;) Designers tend to make quite a bit more money than artists.
And for the record, some artists = designers, and some designers = artists. But they're not the same thing.
You can drag & drop text to & from pretty much any window, and the desktop, in OS X. I just tried dragging a selection from XCode into a text editor, and it workd. Dragging text into an XCode window works just as well. Most other apps support it, too.
/can/ buy a multi-button mouse ;)
And you
You're right, but over-simplifying a bit & missing important distinctions. Yes, software can be art -- look at the demo scene, runme.org, and obfuscated code. Those are all one artist's (or group of artists') vision. They're art. And to a lesser extent, even the code to a text editor can very well have artful touches in it (but chances are it's not going to be apparent in the executable).
/design/.
And likewise, some "art" can have functional / practical aspects, and can be improved on, in a similar manner to the way software (and Free software) can -- but this kind of art is more properly called
Exactly. Even though there are actually several things about the GIMP I prefer to Photoshop, Photoshop will never be able to compete w/the GIMP in the price department. I'm on a Mac, so if the "port to Linux" argument was a valid one, I'd be using Photoshop for my image editing.
Though of course, likewise the GIMP isn't going to be competing with Photoshop in the professional sector. This discussion is full of valid arguments supporting that.
Everyone's saying no, but it seems to me that this camera might make the process of photogrammetry (generating 3D models from a series of 2D images) a lot easier.
I definitely appreciate what you're saying -- but that's not what I was asking.
/did/ work the way I do -- something that works like a drawing/painting program.
/and/ windows-only... So I'm pretty much out of luck on that one.
I wasn't asking how to become a good 3D modeller -- I don't really want to do that. I appreciate the value of practice, but if I'm going to spend a lot of time practicing, I'd rather continue to practice my 2D skills, because that's what I enjoy; that's what I do.
But there are times when I'd like to be able to create a 3D model -- nothing more than dabbling, mind you; it doesn't need to be great. I don't want to waste the time necessary to learn 3D modelling software. They don't work the way I do. What I was asking if anybody knew of a 3D modeller that
Or even better -- something that could actually work from scanned paper sketches. I'd looked into photogrammetry software a while back -- http://www.photomodeler.com/ is the closest I've found, but it's too expensive
Oh yeah, I'd played around with Teddy a while back -- only the web-module, so I couldn't save, and I don't have a tablet (and can't draw with a mouse), so I'd forgotten about it.
:D
However rought it was at the time, though, it's definitely the best (for me) interface for 3D modelling. With some refinement it could be really great -- maybe Shade has the refinement I'm looking for. I'll have to check it out.
Thanks.
I can /draw/, I just can't 3D model.
I'd love something to turn sketches, or a series of sketches, or whatever, into a 3D model.
Hmm... maybe a comma?
"Proud to be a Linux user who can't code, since 1999"
http://www.jackswersie.com/webpages/spambook.htm
I'm guessing it's "Proud to be (a Linux user who can't code) since 1999."
/are/ Linux users who can't code. ;)
Point being, there
See, if they were any brand other than Converse, I would have been bothered by that. But Converse, in my experience, has that "'cool' factor" - I've /seen/ people in real life do that. People who only wear Converse. They love their shoes, and are proud of them. Occurs often, with people and jackets, too.
I'm not saying it wasn't blatant product placement; I'm just saying that it's not as unnatural as some people seem to think.
>That's reformist. What you want is revolution.
Really now?
if you have people pay you to store stuff on your front lawn, and then remove stuff you don't like?
I haven't checked the documentation lately, so maybe things have gotten better...
/is/ a valid concern. It makes learning (especially something as complicated and confusing as blender) a lot harder than it needs to be.
But it was awful hard to get the hang of Blender in the first place, what with the documentation not being current. And a lot of the features just weren't documented. Not having up-to-date documentation
it may have excellent support for plugins, but the plugins are often a pain to find, and a lot of them just don't work.
Killing every human wouldn't work. Pretty much every other animal would have to go, too. (cows, as an obvious example, produce a lot of methane - a greenhouse gas). And then the plants, too, b/c who knows what wd happen when the earth's atmosphere was oversaturated with oxygen?