Re:Cultural differences?
on
KDE 4 Screenshots
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
It's the brand, not the beer--showing once again that a sucker is indeed born every minute.
Re:Cultural differences?
on
KDE 4 Screenshots
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
I didn't know you guys call that "beer".
Many of us don't, actually. Unfortunately we're in the minority.
One of my favorite breweries is run by a guy who used to be a Production Supervisor for Anheuser-Busch. So not everything that comes out of Anhueser-Busch is bad--only the bottled products.
FYI, Behe in "Darwin's Black Box" accepts common descent. His argument is that evolution is not the mechanism through which it works. In other words, Behe wouldn't argue with the idea that sharks and humans have a common ancestor--he just thinks his Intelligent Designer is responsible for it.
At one point towards the end of the book he speculated that the Intelligent Designer had included in the DNA of the earliest life forms all the DNA for later life forms.
Have you looked at the --justdb flag? It makes changes to the RPM database without installing files. You could script your upgrades so that the updated files are installed with tar and then the rpm database is updated with rpm --justdb. I've done something similar with an internal package which was initially released as a tarball so it was easier to keep track of.
The downside to this is that it's prone to errors (e.g., you make a mistake and the rpm database could think that package owns files that don't exist), so you'd want to make sure to test it.
I think the gimp developers have done a great job, but the truth of the matter is that for my purposes I found that the gimp was a hammer and I needed a screwdriver. I've found that I spend less time getting better results with Photoshop than I did with the gimp. There are some solutions in sight, but I want something right now.
By the way, you're too funny. I was trying to explain some of the reasons why I preferred Photoshop over the gimp, so suddenly I'm a lying whiner. Uh huh. Have you thought about cutting down on the caffeine?
There is no preview for the overall image if you use LAB curves under Gimp. You have to run curves individually on each channel, and then recombine the channels to see what they would look like. For many images I make large numbers of changes to the LAB curves. This is an incredible pain in the ass.
In Photoshop, however, I convert the image to LAB. I open curves. I can see the results of each change as I make them.
Got that? Curves work great in GIMP for RGB. Curves don't work great in GIMP for LAB. If curves worked the same for RGB and LAB in GIMP, I'd be happy.
BTW, spare me the patronizing "you people" bullshit. I've been using Linux on the desktop at work since 1998. I use Windows for Photoshop and the occasional game.
This is better than Image->Decompose->LAB, but it still doesn't approach Photoshop's ease of use or flexibility. There's still no way to preview your changes. For instance, with Photoshop I can open up an image in LAB, press Ctrl-M to open up curves and make small or large changes and see the effect immediately. I can change them repeatedly and as needed quickly and easily.
With this plug-in, however, I have to make my changes, click OK to apply them, and then see what they look like. If I have to tweak the image, it looks like I have to back out of the changes and repeat the process. On a typical image this would be a real headache.
Also, I don't see any way to manipulate LAB curves (i.e., no equivalent to Tools->Color Tools->Curves).
The GIMP has LAB, but I haven't found a way to preview the image. So I have to work with the individual L, A and B channels. This is a start, but it's a pain in the [insert body part here] to make some changes to the image, recompose it to see their effect, and then try again (and again and again) when it isn't quite right. Let me add that I use LAB extensively.
In Photoshop, on the other hand you can make changes to the individual channels while simultaneously seeing their effect on your image. It's simpler, quicker and more powerful. In my opinion Photoshop is still markedly better than the GIMP.
There's at least one ball court in Arizona; I think it's at a site near the Petrified Forest. A bit vague, I know, but it's been a couple years since I was out there. Literature at the site indicated that it was the northernmost ballcourt found.
That indicates to me some cultural transmission from Mexico--although it could have been one of any number of people and not the Aztecs.
I'm not sure what you're saying. I'm certainly not suggesting there is no good news in Iraq. I am suggesting, however, that it is outweighed by the bad news, and the media is reporting that appropriately.
Is this evidence that the media has an anti-American bias, or is this evidence that the facts have an anti-American bias? I suppose the media would do a better job of reporting on all the good news coming out of Iraq if they could travel the country safely without a heavily-armed escort to keep them from getting killed or kidnapped.
What you can falsify is one mechanism for it--random recombination. If there are other mechanisms, then your attempt to falsify it mathematically is worthless. Chemical reactions--and spontaneous generation (if it happens) would most assuredly be a chemical reaction--do not happen randomly.
My suspicion is that, under the right conditions, it happens reasonably readily. Even that doesn't disprove Intelligent Design, since the Designer could have designed the laws of the universe so that life comes into being easily.
Wow. So where does all this appear in the scholarly (preferably peer-reviewed) Intelligent Design literature? I've seen Dembski make the information claims, but that's about it.
Most of your claims are just-so stories anyway. Life appears right after the Earth cools? That's consistent with an Intelligent Designer. Life doesn't appear right after the Earth cools? Well, that is too. Spontaneous generation never happens? Consistent with an Intelligent Designer. Spontaneous generation happens all the time (the new critters would tend to get eaten by existing ones, after all)? That's just the method used by the Intelligent Designer. Cambrian explosion? Consistent with an Intelligent Designer. The Cambrian Explosion turns out to be not such an explosion after all? Also consistent with an Intelligent Designer. You can always claim an Intelligent Designer is consistent with the evidence. So what good is it?
Personally, I've been waiting for some time for the wave of research that Intelligent Design is going to bring us. I haven't seen it yet. Nobody can come up with any experiments that actually test Intelligent Design. There have been a handful of books from the likes of Dembski and Behe, but they do little more than make half-assed arguments about how evolution is impossible.
From my half-assed research into the subject, a barrel does two things. First, it contributes flavor. The newer the barrel and the longer the wine is sYou can tell, at least to a certain extent.tored in the barrel, the more flavor is contributed.
Second, it allows the young wine to evaporate (which does not really happen if the wine is properly stored in either glass or stainless steel). Wine makers have to make sure that the barrel is full. The more space is open in the barrel, the more surface area you have for bacterial growth.
There's also the possiblity that small (i.e., trace) amounts of oxygen improve wine flavor, which the greater permeability of the barrel might allow. Google for "micro-oxygenation" if you're interested. It may or may not be snake oil itself, but it certainly isn't practical for the home wine maker (e.g., me--I have a few glass carboys of wine in my basement I need to bottle).
This card would have worked even if they had cancelled his card, so I think it qualifies as hidden.
Re:Maybe not declining, but simply changing
on
Spam is Dead
·
· Score: 1
Yes, and the sites which will prosper will be those who learn to advertise unobtrusively. Just because a site is free, no one is obligated to put up with ads that pop up or block half the screen. Pop-up blockers and the like don't work well with their advertising model and may reduce their income, but they can always change their advertising model.
I don't see the irony here. This is how science works. You make observations and/or perform experiments, and you alter the theory if you need to. It's not a victory for the Intelligent Design folks if the prevailing scientific theory gets something wrong.
Although I can see how you might think that, given that Intelligent Design consists almost entirely of sniping at the prevailing scientific theory.
It doesn't require us to throw out other data. What it does suggest (assuming that their argument is solid) is that the whole thing is more complicated than initially thought, which really shouldn't surprise anyone.
Hey, all science is provisional. Thing is, you need something more than handwaving and sniping at evolution. I think it'd be really neat if the ID folks could actually come up with something. I just don't see how they can do it. Apparently they can't either.
Sure people should be responsible. That doesn't somehow cancel out the need for corporations to be responsible when they, say, accidentally sell personal information for hundreds of thousands of people to the Russian mob. Especially when credit card companies can, in all but a handful of states, give credit cards to total strangers in your name without having to tell you.
You should be telling people to go to Texas (and a few other states), since apparently there you can put your credit in lockdown so that this won't happen.
The thing is, Carl Icahn makes money regardless of whether or not AOL-TW becomes more efficient. It's entirely possible that one or all of the parts of the former AOL-TW end up worse than they did before, but Icahn will still make a profit.
Absolutely. Icahn is not motivated to make Time Warner run better. Icahn is motivated to make money off of the deal, since he stands to make a great deal of it.
Slashdot Mirror
It's the brand, not the beer--showing once again that a sucker is indeed born every minute.
Many of us don't, actually. Unfortunately we're in the minority.
One of my favorite breweries is run by a guy who used to be a Production Supervisor for Anheuser-Busch. So not everything that comes out of Anhueser-Busch is bad--only the bottled products.
FYI, Behe in "Darwin's Black Box" accepts common descent. His argument is that evolution is not the mechanism through which it works. In other words, Behe wouldn't argue with the idea that sharks and humans have a common ancestor--he just thinks his Intelligent Designer is responsible for it.
At one point towards the end of the book he speculated that the Intelligent Designer had included in the DNA of the earliest life forms all the DNA for later life forms.
Have you looked at the --justdb flag? It makes changes to the RPM database without installing files. You could script your upgrades so that the updated files are installed with tar and then the rpm database is updated with rpm --justdb. I've done something similar with an internal package which was initially released as a tarball so it was easier to keep track of.
The downside to this is that it's prone to errors (e.g., you make a mistake and the rpm database could think that package owns files that don't exist), so you'd want to make sure to test it.
I think the gimp developers have done a great job, but the truth of the matter is that for my purposes I found that the gimp was a hammer and I needed a screwdriver. I've found that I spend less time getting better results with Photoshop than I did with the gimp. There are some solutions in sight, but I want something right now.
By the way, you're too funny. I was trying to explain some of the reasons why I preferred Photoshop over the gimp, so suddenly I'm a lying whiner. Uh huh. Have you thought about cutting down on the caffeine?
There is no preview for the overall image if you use LAB curves under Gimp. You have to run curves individually on each channel, and then recombine the channels to see what they would look like. For many images I make large numbers of changes to the LAB curves. This is an incredible pain in the ass.
In Photoshop, however, I convert the image to LAB. I open curves. I can see the results of each change as I make them.
Got that? Curves work great in GIMP for RGB. Curves don't work great in GIMP for LAB. If curves worked the same for RGB and LAB in GIMP, I'd be happy.
BTW, spare me the patronizing "you people" bullshit. I've been using Linux on the desktop at work since 1998. I use Windows for Photoshop and the occasional game.
This is better than Image->Decompose->LAB, but it still doesn't approach Photoshop's ease of use or flexibility. There's still no way to preview your changes. For instance, with Photoshop I can open up an image in LAB, press Ctrl-M to open up curves and make small or large changes and see the effect immediately. I can change them repeatedly and as needed quickly and easily.
With this plug-in, however, I have to make my changes, click OK to apply them, and then see what they look like. If I have to tweak the image, it looks like I have to back out of the changes and repeat the process. On a typical image this would be a real headache.
Also, I don't see any way to manipulate LAB curves (i.e., no equivalent to Tools->Color Tools->Curves).
The GIMP has LAB, but I haven't found a way to preview the image. So I have to work with the individual L, A and B channels. This is a start, but it's a pain in the [insert body part here] to make some changes to the image, recompose it to see their effect, and then try again (and again and again) when it isn't quite right. Let me add that I use LAB extensively.
In Photoshop, on the other hand you can make changes to the individual channels while simultaneously seeing their effect on your image. It's simpler, quicker and more powerful. In my opinion Photoshop is still markedly better than the GIMP.
That indicates to me some cultural transmission from Mexico--although it could have been one of any number of people and not the Aztecs.
I'm not sure what you're saying. I'm certainly not suggesting there is no good news in Iraq. I am suggesting, however, that it is outweighed by the bad news, and the media is reporting that appropriately.
Is this evidence that the media has an anti-American bias, or is this evidence that the facts have an anti-American bias? I suppose the media would do a better job of reporting on all the good news coming out of Iraq if they could travel the country safely without a heavily-armed escort to keep them from getting killed or kidnapped.
My suspicion is that, under the right conditions, it happens reasonably readily. Even that doesn't disprove Intelligent Design, since the Designer could have designed the laws of the universe so that life comes into being easily.
Most of your claims are just-so stories anyway. Life appears right after the Earth cools? That's consistent with an Intelligent Designer. Life doesn't appear right after the Earth cools? Well, that is too. Spontaneous generation never happens? Consistent with an Intelligent Designer. Spontaneous generation happens all the time (the new critters would tend to get eaten by existing ones, after all)? That's just the method used by the Intelligent Designer. Cambrian explosion? Consistent with an Intelligent Designer. The Cambrian Explosion turns out to be not such an explosion after all? Also consistent with an Intelligent Designer. You can always claim an Intelligent Designer is consistent with the evidence. So what good is it?
Personally, I've been waiting for some time for the wave of research that Intelligent Design is going to bring us. I haven't seen it yet. Nobody can come up with any experiments that actually test Intelligent Design. There have been a handful of books from the likes of Dembski and Behe, but they do little more than make half-assed arguments about how evolution is impossible.
From my half-assed research into the subject, a barrel does two things. First, it contributes flavor. The newer the barrel and the longer the wine is sYou can tell, at least to a certain extent.tored in the barrel, the more flavor is contributed. Second, it allows the young wine to evaporate (which does not really happen if the wine is properly stored in either glass or stainless steel). Wine makers have to make sure that the barrel is full. The more space is open in the barrel, the more surface area you have for bacterial growth. There's also the possiblity that small (i.e., trace) amounts of oxygen improve wine flavor, which the greater permeability of the barrel might allow. Google for "micro-oxygenation" if you're interested. It may or may not be snake oil itself, but it certainly isn't practical for the home wine maker (e.g., me--I have a few glass carboys of wine in my basement I need to bottle).
This card would have worked even if they had cancelled his card, so I think it qualifies as hidden.
Yes, and the sites which will prosper will be those who learn to advertise unobtrusively. Just because a site is free, no one is obligated to put up with ads that pop up or block half the screen. Pop-up blockers and the like don't work well with their advertising model and may reduce their income, but they can always change their advertising model.
Although I can see how you might think that, given that Intelligent Design consists almost entirely of sniping at the prevailing scientific theory.
It doesn't require us to throw out other data. What it does suggest (assuming that their argument is solid) is that the whole thing is more complicated than initially thought, which really shouldn't surprise anyone.
Hey, all science is provisional. Thing is, you need something more than handwaving and sniping at evolution. I think it'd be really neat if the ID folks could actually come up with something. I just don't see how they can do it. Apparently they can't either.
I believe this person works for one of my customers.
No mod points, but I mailed it to my wife the manager. Does that count?
You should be telling people to go to Texas (and a few other states), since apparently there you can put your credit in lockdown so that this won't happen.
My employer has insurance companies as clients, too. Almost universally they're penny wise and pound foolish.
The thing is, Carl Icahn makes money regardless of whether or not AOL-TW becomes more efficient. It's entirely possible that one or all of the parts of the former AOL-TW end up worse than they did before, but Icahn will still make a profit.
Absolutely. Icahn is not motivated to make Time Warner run better. Icahn is motivated to make money off of the deal, since he stands to make a great deal of it.