What does it take for life to come about from non-life. Do we have an idea?
The error - and even most scientists have not understood this - is, to make a spearation between the two. There is no single moment, where something became "alive".
It's a veeery gradual process, starting with the simples physical/chemical reactions, and evolving to more complex systems. Even we ourselves are such very complex systems.
See... I do not even have to mention the word "life". It's just another one of those egocentric concepts, like seeing humans as separate from animals, thinking we were the center of the universe... and so on.... So the problem is purely psychological.
This is the only reason, such an obvious concept is still mostly repressed.
Your sig contradicts itself. Not everyone wants a simple (which is partially the same as "easy to use") OS. Fuck simplicity! I want POWER.:D (And IF this makes you think that I want the complete (and maybe even extreme) opposite of simplicity... then I will stop arguing, because then you're not even ready for a grown-up discussion.:P)
Lol. You wear shoes on your hands? You eat with your butts too?
Well. The difference is not that big. Both "sides" (in reality, this is a false dichotomy) have a buttload of religious fanatics. The ones go to the army to serve their country. The other ones can not invade foreign countries just like that, so they go guerrilla and do it this way. Mix guerrilla with religious fanatism, and you get suicide bombers. I'm really *really* certain, that if the roles were interchanged, there would be some similar Christian madness going on.
Both sides kill innocent people and rape their wives in war zones. Don't think there's any exception. Ask anyone who has been on the receiving side in a war, and you *will* hear those stories. Like in Yugoslavia, where they roasted an "enemy" child like a sucking pig, and ate it... told from a really nice but now crying Yugoslavian grandma.
And please do *never* misunderstand this one: I like most American people. Most people on Slashdot are. Jon Steward is. But I hate your government. I'm no American, but I know that if you would want to go further from the true American values, you would have to... well... I do not know an example that is that perverse. The same is true for Iran and their gross misuse of the Koran. It's the same kind of insult to the values. Or do you really think most people in Iran not good people??
BonziBuddy?? Really?? Why would you mention the most famous spyware on the planet in on sentence with mplayer? I have to ask you to turn in your geek card right now, or you will be shot on sight.;)
...that every time Iran does anything, there's a "but in could also be used for thisandthat war technology"?
A short perspective giver: The USA do in fact use everything they can as a war technology. For very high tech, I's even the other way around: 1st: War, 2nd: commecrialized... AND they attack foreign countries... AND they have craploads of WMDs...
I'm sorry, but offensive war actions and propaganda is always wrong! And this is cleary a result of propaganda. You want to be better than Iran... But to us from the rest of the world (Germany (Europe) here), your government, and the ones influenced by it, look just the same as those in Iran.
I really hope, that soon, both countries get a better education system. Then most of this shit will stop by itself (like: religious madness).
I tried Windows XP once for a year in user-mode, where you had to do something like sudo to use administrator-stuff. It was a major annoyance, without actually adding much security.
You *can* run it that way. But it certainly is not made for it. This "sudo" was an open-source tool that I had to add myself. And still I often ran into problems with applications trying to access non-user stuff. So you can say that the application developers are responsible too. But not solely.
Well, now I use Linux, so the problems are gone (but new ones *emerged* *hint*hint*)
The idea of the security model in Vista - is it was meant to be, before the crooks modified it - actually is one level better than every other desktop OS, and even most server OSes. Trusted computing is a good thing, if *YOU* are the one who is the boss/decider over his system. Unfortunately they decided... no to trust... YOU! The control goes to MS. And MS asks the media industry. The rest follows from that.
So Vista probably would be able to pull it off... theoretically... In reality, there are the usual non-fixed security holes, really retarded "security" schemes (like trusting setup executables, depending on their file name), and the typical Microsoft-attitude, plus the problem that it's the evil version of TCPA.
But you are right. If the general architecture is so broken, that it does not even allow the implementation of a secure system without nearly creating a virtual CPU, then we can safely say that there is no sense it implementing it, and therefore it will never work correctly. (Of course, then you would simply replace the general architecture (Eg. install another OS).
Apropos. Is there a gammatical reference for englist, which is in EBNF or at least a similar proper and complete form? Preferably without the vocabulary normally used to explain grammar. And more like a language reference.
I *detest* those chaotic (meaning: on structure, no consistency, no logic) pseudo-easy (meanin: too dumbed down to be usable) grammar books that you can get from amazon.
I would even put real money on the table if I could get a high-quality reference like described above.
When you get statistics like 80%+ of people not being able to program VCR's (which were created by large teams and with huge investment) you can be sure most "designers" are just scam artists.
I always interpreted that statement as an example of the rampant mummery. I know, that my grandma can't program a VCR. But that's because she does nut understand the basic concept of menu navigation (prev/next, select/exit, +/-). She does not ever know what the >> on the remote control means. If you're that old that your brain is not able to add those concepts, that's Ok. You've done enough in you life to be proud of yourself. But, if you're 32, and you can't program a VCR, then sorry... you're a retard.
I'm even making a game out of testing how many obscure functions I find without the manual. Sometimes I evne find undocumented ones. And osn simple eletronics like VCRs, I rarely miss a documented feature (usually it's one like "press tiny button X with a paperclip for 4 seconds, and then *583-up-enter#"), which then, shows the real bad interface designers.:D
Another example is the modern computer desktop. What idiot thought it was a good idea for icons to all act differently depending on whether they are in the bottom-right, bottom-middle, bottom-left, top-right or center of the desktop? Highlight, single-click, double-click, right-click, drag, select, you name it, it's all different. It's just a mess for the average computer user.
Where have you got that example from? I can't remeber a system, where Icons behaved differently, depending on their position. Okay, if you mean buttons looking like icons, i can understand that. That's quite stupid design.:) And I would argue that all-icon designs are stupid per se. And the constant mousee-keyboard are even worse. The other two big no-nos are tiny buttons for the most used functions (like those ">" links for pagination on web sites), and mouseoveer-activation for tiny areas (like the sub-menus of the windows start menu. I saw a game, that used these things as obstacles to add difficulty....talk about bad interface design.:D
That whole mess is the reason, I got into interface design (as a hobby for now, but soon hopefully as a profession). But right now, I'm too far from the actual state, to even explain these concepts in less than half an hour. (And I will make sure, they will be open source exclusives:)
Okay. I Implied that Gimp was for graphic designers. Maybe that was the problem.:) Or not... I don't know. I think the more people you can make happy, the better. So because I'm a creative person *and* a logic person, I'd build my apps for those, and then ask others for unfamiliar target groups. It would be cool if the Gimp developers had that mindset, or someone would simply build another interface for their backend.
Nothing wrong with the former, but unless you are the target audience, you will be setting yourself up for a frustrating time. you will only ever be able to say why something works or does not work for you, not why it does or does not work for me.
Good point. That's why I have to ask you.:D
Perhaps we can agree that we have different concepts of good enough, and different requirements.
We sure do. But it's not that simple. On every thing X, our concepts and opinions overlap for α. And every thing X_n has the angle Î_Î1 to every other thing X_m in concept similarity space for every person Î. Or something like that...:D
How much do you change the app at once? Gimp is established, with a large community of users.
Nothing. And everything. At the same time.:) I simply offer more than one UI. And when proper done, I can even offer everything in between The UI should be separated from the logic anyway. (Do you say "anyway" or "anyways"?) Planning and developing such things is one of my hobbies.:)
Strange as it may seem from the outside, there are people who are quite happy with Gimp,
That's what I said too. There's nothing strange about the target group being happy with the program.:)
so what is the incentive to make Gimp for the graphic design market?
I never said something about a "market". Money should play no direct role here. My incentive is, to make everyone happy with my projects and ideas, and not only propagate trough breeding, but trough spreading of my reality / mindset too. Because in the end, we're just expanding biomass and information. It's a part of my interpretation of the meaning of life.
Of course this might not be the incentive of the developers of Gimp.:)
> When a Web site says Flash, JavaScript, Silverlight, Internet Explorer or anything else is required then that Website is never again visited. One must separate the wheat from the chaff.
This maybe is true, except if you want to do a real web application. Loading a whole HTML-page, just to change some state of an (non-form-element) interface element... That's insanity. You've done the same that someone in a trauma does. You're created false associations. It's not the technology or even the virtual machine that's bad. It's the implementation. Your argument is the same, as if someone who had only bad experiences with x86, while having good ones with his old 86000s, argues that "if an application requires x86, then that application is never again used." The same is true for OSes. Someone could implement Windows XP in a proper manner, and make it a very safe system. (I did not say that someone would want, tough;)
Or in short: Someone can crack a bad JavaScript VM and contaminate the rest of the system. And someone could crack a bad OS, and contaminate the rest of the system. There are even examples for this on virtualization VMs. (Heck, the system's clipboard is accessible to all 3 of them, on modern VMs!)
So my vote goes for Replacing the JavaScript VM with a hardened generic VM, with a fixed interface to the outside world, and adding JavaScript, Python, Ruby, Haskel, Ocaml and more as languages to it (via add-ons, or pre-compiled?)
Okay, I think one should remove at least one layer of abstraction/VM and harden the OS so that even OpenGL on JavaScript would not have a performance loss. (Yes, this would be useful. Eg. for quick dynamic data visualization or entertainment applications.)
Nah. I absolutely *hate* oversimplification aka stupidification.:) I wrote a large posting about why the UIs of open source software is the way it is: The developers had to only make it perfect for themselves. So that's what they did. Unfortunately, developers are no graphical artists. They are developers. They think like developers. But most people do not. So there's a huge chance that it's not fitting with those people. This is going to stay, because it's no problem for the developers. They are of course happy the way it is.
So there is no absolute "good" or "bad"... as always.
I dislike Gimp's interface because it simply does not make any sense to me. But hey, I can only speak for myself and what others that I trust told me about their opinion.
Conclusion: Gimp needs some fresh people who come from the designer side in the first place, and then a huge makeover. (This does not mean that the actual state has to go. It does simply become one of many UI modes.)
Gimp? Naaah, Gimp does not allow anyone (other than the developers) to alter photographs. Or do anything useful. It allows you to explode your head by trying to use it, sure. And if you survive, you still have to force it to let you alter photographs. But that's about it.:D
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah man... This was the most insightful comment in the thread.
What, 1f th3r3's no 3 or 1 1n th3 sc3nt3nc3?
Sorry for my typos. I meant "separation". Obviously scientists and geeks do not "spear" life or non-life. Conan does!
And "simplest" instead of "simples". Obviously I do not know a funny line for this one. Conan does! (The other one.)
(No, I won't point out every punctuation error. You know who to ask... Stars with C...)
I thought that was the starting point of the discussion, and if you wanted to show something, then, that regular software uses popups too. :)
What does it take for life to come about from non-life. Do we have an idea?
The error - and even most scientists have not understood this - is, to make a spearation between the two.
There is no single moment, where something became "alive".
It's a veeery gradual process, starting with the simples physical/chemical reactions, and evolving to more complex systems.
Even we ourselves are such very complex systems.
See... I do not even have to mention the word "life".
It's just another one of those egocentric concepts, like seeing humans as separate from animals, thinking we were the center of the universe... and so on....
So the problem is purely psychological.
This is the only reason, such an obvious concept is still mostly repressed.
Your sig contradicts itself. Not everyone wants a simple (which is partially the same as "easy to use") OS. Fuck simplicity! I want POWER. :D :P)
(And IF this makes you think that I want the complete (and maybe even extreme) opposite of simplicity... then I will stop arguing, because then you're not even ready for a grown-up discussion.
Lol. You wear shoes on your hands? You eat with your butts too?
Well. The difference is not that big. Both "sides" (in reality, this is a false dichotomy) have a buttload of religious fanatics. The ones go to the army to serve their country. The other ones can not invade foreign countries just like that, so they go guerrilla and do it this way.
Mix guerrilla with religious fanatism, and you get suicide bombers.
I'm really *really* certain, that if the roles were interchanged, there would be some similar Christian madness going on.
Both sides kill innocent people and rape their wives in war zones. Don't think there's any exception. Ask anyone who has been on the receiving side in a war, and you *will* hear those stories. Like in Yugoslavia, where they roasted an "enemy" child like a sucking pig, and ate it... told from a really nice but now crying Yugoslavian grandma.
And please do *never* misunderstand this one: I like most American people. Most people on Slashdot are. Jon Steward is. But I hate your government. I'm no American, but I know that if you would want to go further from the true American values, you would have to... well... I do not know an example that is that perverse. The same is true for Iran and their gross misuse of the Koran. It's the same kind of insult to the values.
Or do you really think most people in Iran not good people??
Unfortunately then they would have to also get rid ob themselves....
*i know* *i know*...
The answer is...
ROBOTWAAARSSS! :D
BonziBuddy?? Really?? ;)
Why would you mention the most famous spyware on the planet in on sentence with mplayer?
I have to ask you to turn in your geek card right now, or you will be shot on sight.
...that every time Iran does anything, there's a "but in could also be used for thisandthat war technology"?
A short perspective giver: The USA do in fact use everything they can as a war technology. For very high tech, I's even the other way around: 1st: War, 2nd: commecrialized... AND they attack foreign countries... AND they have craploads of WMDs...
I'm sorry, but offensive war actions and propaganda is always wrong!
And this is cleary a result of propaganda. You want to be better than Iran...
But to us from the rest of the world (Germany (Europe) here), your government, and the ones influenced by it, look just the same as those in Iran.
I really hope, that soon, both countries get a better education system. Then most of this shit will stop by itself (like: religious madness).
So if i drop them in texas, no one will be left?
Would also be a nice drop-in (ehhrm) for terrorist HQs like the Mugabe HQ, Cheney HQ, Ahmadinedschad HQ, and so on... O:-)
I, for one welcome... No, for real... I welcome them. :)
</funny>
Thank you. I'll check it out. :)
I tried Windows XP once for a year in user-mode, where you had to do something like sudo to use administrator-stuff.
It was a major annoyance, without actually adding much security.
You *can* run it that way. But it certainly is not made for it. This "sudo" was an open-source tool that I had to add myself.
And still I often ran into problems with applications trying to access non-user stuff.
So you can say that the application developers are responsible too. But not solely.
Well, now I use Linux, so the problems are gone (but new ones *emerged* *hint*hint*)
The idea of the security model in Vista - is it was meant to be, before the crooks modified it - actually is one level better than every other desktop OS, and even most server OSes. Trusted computing is a good thing, if *YOU* are the one who is the boss/decider over his system.
Unfortunately they decided... no to trust... YOU! The control goes to MS. And MS asks the media industry. The rest follows from that.
So Vista probably would be able to pull it off... theoretically...
In reality, there are the usual non-fixed security holes, really retarded "security" schemes (like trusting setup executables, depending on their file name), and the typical Microsoft-attitude, plus the problem that it's the evil version of TCPA.
But you are right. If the general architecture is so broken, that it does not even allow the implementation of a secure system without nearly creating a virtual CPU, then we can safely say that there is no sense it implementing it, and therefore it will never work correctly. (Of course, then you would simply replace the general architecture (Eg. install another OS).
No, I meant Engrish... of course... See how bad I'm at Engrish. I certainly need to become better at it. ;D
(DOH, for me not using the spell checker on that *one* post where it really counts. :D)
Oh, and please:
"Learning by example(s)" is the exact opposite of what I'm searching.
Apropos. Is there a gammatical reference for englist, which is in EBNF or at least a similar proper and complete form? Preferably without the vocabulary normally used to explain grammar.
And more like a language reference.
I *detest* those chaotic (meaning: on structure, no consistency, no logic) pseudo-easy (meanin: too dumbed down to be usable) grammar books that you can get from amazon.
I would even put real money on the table if I could get a high-quality reference like described above.
ACs don't have mothers. Not even in-law. :D
When you get statistics like 80%+ of people not being able to program VCR's (which were created by large teams and with huge investment) you can be sure most "designers" are just scam artists.
I always interpreted that statement as an example of the rampant mummery.
I know, that my grandma can't program a VCR. But that's because she does nut understand the basic concept of menu navigation (prev/next, select/exit, +/-). She does not ever know what the >> on the remote control means.
If you're that old that your brain is not able to add those concepts, that's Ok. You've done enough in you life to be proud of yourself.
But, if you're 32, and you can't program a VCR, then sorry... you're a retard.
I'm even making a game out of testing how many obscure functions I find without the manual. Sometimes I evne find undocumented ones. And osn simple eletronics like VCRs, I rarely miss a documented feature (usually it's one like "press tiny button X with a paperclip for 4 seconds, and then *583-up-enter#"), which then, shows the real bad interface designers. :D
Another example is the modern computer desktop. What idiot thought it was a good idea for icons to all act differently depending on whether they are in the bottom-right, bottom-middle, bottom-left, top-right or center of the desktop? Highlight, single-click, double-click, right-click, drag, select, you name it, it's all different. It's just a mess for the average computer user.
Where have you got that example from? I can't remeber a system, where Icons behaved differently, depending on their position. Okay, if you mean buttons looking like icons, i can understand that. That's quite stupid design. :) ...talk about bad interface design. :D
And I would argue that all-icon designs are stupid per se. And the constant mousee-keyboard are even worse. The other two big no-nos are tiny buttons for the most used functions (like those ">" links for pagination on web sites), and mouseoveer-activation for tiny areas (like the sub-menus of the windows start menu. I saw a game, that used these things as obstacles to add difficulty.
That whole mess is the reason, I got into interface design (as a hobby for now, but soon hopefully as a profession). :)
But right now, I'm too far from the actual state, to even explain these concepts in less than half an hour.
(And I will make sure, they will be open source exclusives
Graphic designers are not Gimp users.
Okay. I Implied that Gimp was for graphic designers. Maybe that was the problem. :)
Or not... I don't know. I think the more people you can make happy, the better. So because I'm a creative person *and* a logic person, I'd build my apps for those, and then ask others for unfamiliar target groups.
It would be cool if the Gimp developers had that mindset, or someone would simply build another interface for their backend.
Nothing wrong with the former, but unless you are the target audience, you will be setting yourself up for a frustrating time. you will only ever be able to say why something works or does not work for you, not why it does or does not work for me.
Good point. That's why I have to ask you. :D
Perhaps we can agree that we have different concepts of good enough, and different requirements.
We sure do. But it's not that simple. On every thing X, our concepts and opinions overlap for α. And every thing X_n has the angle Î_Î1 to every other thing X_m in concept similarity space for every person Î. Or something like that... :D
How much do you change the app at once? Gimp is established, with a large community of users.
Nothing. And everything. At the same time. :) :)
I simply offer more than one UI. And when proper done, I can even offer everything in between
The UI should be separated from the logic anyway. (Do you say "anyway" or "anyways"?)
Planning and developing such things is one of my hobbies.
Strange as it may seem from the outside, there are people who are quite happy with Gimp,
That's what I said too. There's nothing strange about the target group being happy with the program. :)
so what is the incentive to make Gimp for the graphic design market?
I never said something about a "market". Money should play no direct role here.
My incentive is, to make everyone happy with my projects and ideas, and not only propagate trough breeding, but trough spreading of my reality / mindset too.
Because in the end, we're just expanding biomass and information.
It's a part of my interpretation of the meaning of life.
Of course this might not be the incentive of the developers of Gimp. :)
> When a Web site says Flash, JavaScript, Silverlight, Internet Explorer or anything else is required then that Website is never again visited. One must separate the wheat from the chaff.
This maybe is true, except if you want to do a real web application. Loading a whole HTML-page, just to change some state of an (non-form-element) interface element... That's insanity. ;)
You've done the same that someone in a trauma does. You're created false associations. It's not the technology or even the virtual machine that's bad. It's the implementation.
Your argument is the same, as if someone who had only bad experiences with x86, while having good ones with his old 86000s, argues that "if an application requires x86, then that application is never again used."
The same is true for OSes. Someone could implement Windows XP in a proper manner, and make it a very safe system. (I did not say that someone would want, tough
Or in short:
Someone can crack a bad JavaScript VM and contaminate the rest of the system. And someone could crack a bad OS, and contaminate the rest of the system. There are even examples for this on virtualization VMs. (Heck, the system's clipboard is accessible to all 3 of them, on modern VMs!)
So my vote goes for Replacing the JavaScript VM with a hardened generic VM, with a fixed interface to the outside world, and adding JavaScript, Python, Ruby, Haskel, Ocaml and more as languages to it (via add-ons, or pre-compiled?)
Okay, I think one should remove at least one layer of abstraction/VM and harden the OS so that even OpenGL on JavaScript would not have a performance loss. (Yes, this would be useful. Eg. for quick dynamic data visualization or entertainment applications.)
I'm sorry, but Wine is developed in a way that *includes* all the quirks/bugs, specifically to run games that use these.
I's even on their features page: http://www.winehq.org/site/wine_features
* "bug-for-bug" compatibility with Windows
*WOOOOSSHHH*
Nah. I absolutely *hate* oversimplification aka stupidification. :)
I wrote a large posting about why the UIs of open source software is the way it is: The developers had to only make it perfect for themselves. So that's what they did. Unfortunately, developers are no graphical artists. They are developers. They think like developers.
But most people do not. So there's a huge chance that it's not fitting with those people. This is going to stay, because it's no problem for the developers. They are of course happy the way it is.
So there is no absolute "good" or "bad"... as always.
I dislike Gimp's interface because it simply does not make any sense to me. But hey, I can only speak for myself and what others that I trust told me about their opinion.
Conclusion: Gimp needs some fresh people who come from the designer side in the first place, and then a huge makeover. (This does not mean that the actual state has to go. It does simply become one of many UI modes.)
Gimp? Naaah, Gimp does not allow anyone (other than the developers) to alter photographs. Or do anything useful. :D
It allows you to explode your head by trying to use it, sure. And if you survive, you still have to force it to let you alter photographs.
But that's about it.