Why is it humorous? The chemicals our eyes use to detect light are more sensitive to some colors than others. It's a short jump from seeing one color to two. This apparently conferred an advantage, and became more prevalent. We didn't need to know about it to evolve it, since we weren't choosing our direction of evolution in the first place.
It's a problem because only a crazy person wants to go and worship an asshole like that. Of course, I can't see why a sane person would want to go around worshipping anyone. Fear is a powerful motivator.
"Since Evolution is a continuing process, could you please demonstrate an intermediate step where one lower-order species is becoming a higher species?"
Sure I will, as soon as you demonstrate a method for looking into the future? While you're at it, how about a way to see into the past so we can settle this god thing once and for all. How could anyone possibly know which lower-order species will evolve into a higher-order one? For that matter, it wouldn't necessarily be advantageous for one to do so.
"So, by your reckoning, scientists just want to know "truth," which is not always consistent with facts. Adherents to religion accept a truth and admit that truth is accepted without all the facts---we accept the truth based on inferences."
No, from a scientific point of view, truth is always consistent with facts. Scientists call facts evidence. If the evidence does't line up with what you think, then you've either gathered it wrong, you're misinterpreting the it, or your ideas are wrong. Science depends on that viewpoint to function at all. Truth isn't subjective, but interpreting the facts to divine it is. Scientific debates aren't over facts: if it's agreed that an experiment was conducted well, then the facts are accepted. Scientific debates center around how we interpret those facts.
Science differs from religion in that religion believes that we can somehow know the truth without figuring it out by looking at the facts, while science believes that the only way to be sure of anything is by investigating the phemomenon in question and making damn sure that whatever you make up is in accord with the facts.
As for the argument about evolution, you're mistaking science's ability to improve our lives for its only goal. From the beginning, science has been about understanding our world and expanding our knowledge. Eventually we learned that science can help us in practical ways, and that's a very good reason for doing it, but our first reason never went away. Also, why do you assume that your failure to see how knowledge of evolution is helping us indicates its failure to help us? You're clearly ignorant of science in many ways. Tracing the evolution of viruses and bacteria is very helpful in understanding where they come from, and how we might best deal with them. Evolution and biology are growing closer together all the time.
How is your experience relevant? Have you tried running your special compiler and Molpro under Windows? Presumably not, since it seems to be *nix only. So you have no basis for comparison, unless you're basing your comparison on something other than the one thing you mentioned. Have you tried installing a desktop-oriented Linux distro and using it for normal tasks rather than the niche ones you normally use Linux for? I fear your perspective may be distorted by the uncommon tasks you're trying to perform.
What? A dream? I play football because I enjoy playing games with friends, and because crashing into people is fun. I'm not sure why you think everyone that plays a game is trying to turn it into a career.
Re:Comments from people who actually create Creati
on
Beginning GIMP
·
· Score: 1
I never said it was easy to guess, but I keep seeing people post about this tutorial like that's proof that drawing lines in the Gimp is a monumental task. If you actually read the tutorial you see that it's simple, and doesn't even require switching tools. Honestly, I don't care much if people too hardheaded to just google for something can guess how to accomplish their task or not. I care about how easy it is after you know how.
Most people who play football aren't getting paid for it. What about us?
Re:Gimp's interface is crap
on
Beginning GIMP
·
· Score: 1
You're asking why the Gimp is harder to use than MS Paint? For real?
First of all, it's not harder to use; it's easier to use. The Gimp's widespread use of hotkeys is crushing Paint's near-total lack of the same. Once you know them, accomplishing any task that paint can accomplish is much faster in the Gimp. "Oh, but what about all the other stuff?" You mean the things that Paint doesn't even do? If you want simple, you have to give up features.
The Gimp may or may not be harder to use than Photoshop or PSP. I don't know, since those programs do not fall within my budget.
Thank you for the detailed reasoning you provided for your apparently baseless statements though.
Re:Comments from people who actually create Creati
on
Beginning GIMP
·
· Score: 1
It's a lot faster to draw in the Gimp than in MS Paint. It does everything Paint does but more easily, since it actually has hotkeys and fuzzy brushes.
Re:Comments from people who actually create Creati
on
Beginning GIMP
·
· Score: 1
Did you really need to read through that whole tutorial to figure out how to draw a line? I hope not, since it went something like:
I. Explain what a line is 1. Explain what the shift key and mouse are 2. Create a new image 3. Select the paintbrush 4. Make a dot 5. Shift-click somewhere else (there's your line) F. Let go of the shift key
If you needed any of that besides steps 4 and 5, you have do business drawing anything as complex as a line.
Blender's interface isn't intuitive, but I've found it to be pretty quick, especially for mesh editing. The keystrokes are easy to use once you get the hang of them.
Indeed. If he know's he's got big expenses coming up and wants to prepare that's one thing, but he sound's like he's just wants to work more because he feels he should earn as much as he can. Don't do it, guy. Working five to six hours at a time is plenty.
Ugh. That's a damn shame. It should at least use swappable battery cartriges. I hate prying a couple of batteries out of a device whenever they need to be messed with.
It's already open by most definitions. The question is whether it should move from GPL licensing to the public domain, and the answer lies in our pontification.
Slashdot Mirror
Why is it humorous? The chemicals our eyes use to detect light are more sensitive to some colors than others. It's a short jump from seeing one color to two. This apparently conferred an advantage, and became more prevalent. We didn't need to know about it to evolve it, since we weren't choosing our direction of evolution in the first place.
It's a problem because only a crazy person wants to go and worship an asshole like that. Of course, I can't see why a sane person would want to go around worshipping anyone. Fear is a powerful motivator.
"Since Evolution is a continuing process, could you please demonstrate an intermediate step where one lower-order species is becoming a higher species?"
Sure I will, as soon as you demonstrate a method for looking into the future? While you're at it, how about a way to see into the past so we can settle this god thing once and for all. How could anyone possibly know which lower-order species will evolve into a higher-order one? For that matter, it wouldn't necessarily be advantageous for one to do so.
"So, by your reckoning, scientists just want to know "truth," which is not always consistent with facts. Adherents to religion accept a truth and admit that truth is accepted without all the facts---we accept the truth based on inferences."
No, from a scientific point of view, truth is always consistent with facts. Scientists call facts evidence. If the evidence does't line up with what you think, then you've either gathered it wrong, you're misinterpreting the it, or your ideas are wrong. Science depends on that viewpoint to function at all. Truth isn't subjective, but interpreting the facts to divine it is. Scientific debates aren't over facts: if it's agreed that an experiment was conducted well, then the facts are accepted. Scientific debates center around how we interpret those facts.
Science differs from religion in that religion believes that we can somehow know the truth without figuring it out by looking at the facts, while science believes that the only way to be sure of anything is by investigating the phemomenon in question and making damn sure that whatever you make up is in accord with the facts.
As for the argument about evolution, you're mistaking science's ability to improve our lives for its only goal. From the beginning, science has been about understanding our world and expanding our knowledge. Eventually we learned that science can help us in practical ways, and that's a very good reason for doing it, but our first reason never went away. Also, why do you assume that your failure to see how knowledge of evolution is helping us indicates its failure to help us? You're clearly ignorant of science in many ways. Tracing the evolution of viruses and bacteria is very helpful in understanding where they come from, and how we might best deal with them. Evolution and biology are growing closer together all the time.
How is your experience relevant? Have you tried running your special compiler and Molpro under Windows? Presumably not, since it seems to be *nix only. So you have no basis for comparison, unless you're basing your comparison on something other than the one thing you mentioned. Have you tried installing a desktop-oriented Linux distro and using it for normal tasks rather than the niche ones you normally use Linux for? I fear your perspective may be distorted by the uncommon tasks you're trying to perform.
That is quick. My PC takes a good 40 seconds or so to reboot.
Do you have to reboot your computer a couple times a month?
What? A dream? I play football because I enjoy playing games with friends, and because crashing into people is fun. I'm not sure why you think everyone that plays a game is trying to turn it into a career.
I never said it was easy to guess, but I keep seeing people post about this tutorial like that's proof that drawing lines in the Gimp is a monumental task. If you actually read the tutorial you see that it's simple, and doesn't even require switching tools. Honestly, I don't care much if people too hardheaded to just google for something can guess how to accomplish their task or not. I care about how easy it is after you know how.
Most people who play football aren't getting paid for it. What about us?
You're asking why the Gimp is harder to use than MS Paint? For real?
First of all, it's not harder to use; it's easier to use. The Gimp's widespread use of hotkeys is crushing Paint's near-total lack of the same. Once you know them, accomplishing any task that paint can accomplish is much faster in the Gimp. "Oh, but what about all the other stuff?" You mean the things that Paint doesn't even do? If you want simple, you have to give up features.
The Gimp may or may not be harder to use than Photoshop or PSP. I don't know, since those programs do not fall within my budget.
Thank you for the detailed reasoning you provided for your apparently baseless statements though.
It's a lot faster to draw in the Gimp than in MS Paint. It does everything Paint does but more easily, since it actually has hotkeys and fuzzy brushes.
Did you really need to read through that whole tutorial to figure out how to draw a line? I hope not, since it went something like:
I. Explain what a line is
1. Explain what the shift key and mouse are
2. Create a new image
3. Select the paintbrush
4. Make a dot
5. Shift-click somewhere else (there's your line)
F. Let go of the shift key
If you needed any of that besides steps 4 and 5, you have do business drawing anything as complex as a line.
If I had a nickel for every time I hear that... well, I'd have some nickels. And I do.
Blender's interface isn't intuitive, but I've found it to be pretty quick, especially for mesh editing. The keystrokes are easy to use once you get the hang of them.
Actually, it's probably easier for new users than users transitioning from other packages. No habits to unlearn.
Indeed. If he know's he's got big expenses coming up and wants to prepare that's one thing, but he sound's like he's just wants to work more because he feels he should earn as much as he can. Don't do it, guy. Working five to six hours at a time is plenty.
Ugh. That's a damn shame. It should at least use swappable battery cartriges. I hate prying a couple of batteries out of a device whenever they need to be messed with.
I'm pretty sure you could free it if you got permission from each and every content submitter. Not that that's possible or anything.
It's already open by most definitions. The question is whether it should move from GPL licensing to the public domain, and the answer lies in our pontification.
Of course all Slashdot comments are made up. Did you think they formed on their own? Crystallized perhaps?
Ooh, that's cool. The old engine did underwhelm me a little.
Minor as in "can probably make it home without exploding", not minor as in doesn't need attention.
I was hoping someone would mention that game, since it seems pretty disturbing from what I've heard. I haven't played it yet myself.
How did that lower your opinion of it? That's how it should work.
"how many make pure sh!t with guitars and violins?"
A lot. Trust me.