Ahh, but to the materialist, the physical laws in the end control your thought process do they not? BTW, this is an internal critique of the materialist worldview.
The control issue only comes up if you assume thought to be seperated from nature, otherwise they are the same thing and physics controls thought no more then thought controls physics or physics conrols physics. However it may be, it certainly doesn't depend on ones opinion, so materialists are no more affected then anyone else.
A patent that describes both a Walkman and an iPod? How far into the "idea, not implementation" and "obvious" fields does one have to wander to not get a few million from someone who actualy did what you only had a fogy idea of?
Less clicking is good for mindless zombies, potentialy clueful users and those who know what they are doing. "Next-next-next" lumps the second in with the first and anoys the third.
While Photoshop would add nothing to the procedural texture designer, it might still be worthwhile from a UI/learning curve standpoint.
No it wouldn't be, the designer wouldn't get any more familiar just because you call it via a menu in Photoshop, it would use none of the Photoshop's tools or workflow concepts.
Or, more generally, the question was: are procedural textures something current artists could learn to create fairly easily, or would they have to become "programmers lite"?
Not only could they, but they already do. Many 3D programs incorporate procedural texture designers and good 3D artists use them. Artists not familiar with them however will probably need to aquire a little more technical knowlage to design procedural textures efficiently. OTOH people who are familiar with Photoshop or other bitmap editors will find that many non-drawing concepts translate well into the new domain--noise generation, layers, gradients, etc.
Which is exactly what the original poster was asking about, and sounds like it could easily be a Photoshop plugin.
And why exactly would you bolt large amounts of bitmap manipulation tools to a procedural texture designer? Making it a Photoshop plugin adds nothing to a procedural texture designer that can't be done with the black art of copy and paste.
How many casual users know to (and how to) search Google for a problem? How many of them even hit F1 when they don't understand what's being presented to them? How many non-geeks even know what a 'wiki' is?
About as many, as can solve all their Windows problems on their own.
She didn't care that windows' security had more holes than a chunk of Swiss cheese, she didn't care that her Windows machine would freeze once in a while, she didn't care about the "free" part and she definitely didn't give a damn anymore about "Humanity towards others" when she could not have her Photoshop.
Of course she didn't--you where doing all the work where those things matter.
Once Windows automatically downloads IE7 next month, then compare downloads.
The current statistics are interesting because they show user demand as opposed to market share.
No matter how good Firefox may be, it'll never overcome "already installed and automatically updated".
That's funny, because I'm typing this from an Ubuntu 6.10 CD with Firefox 2.0 while the system is installing in the background, when I reboot Firefox 2.0 will be already installed and automatically updated with the rest of the system. On Windows systems the "already installed" part depends on OEMs and automatic updates are done by Firefox itself. Will you be able to browse the web with IE 7 while Vista installs? Will there be system-wide automatic updates or will people still need to update a large part of the system by hand?
DRM is encryption in which you only give keys to licensees.
That's not true. Only giving keys to authorized parties is a standard use of encryption. With DRM schemes keys are specificly keept from the licensees in an atempt to give only specific software and/or hardware the ability to decrypt the data, the software and/or hordware in turn atempts to restrict post decryption activities such as selective data use and copying. Post decryption restrictions are out of scope as far as encryption is concerned, but fundamental to the concept of DRM.
Slashdot Mirror
Because I don't want people to misuse their tools on me?
They want video to convict suspects and prevent false allegations, with that context there is no irony in questioning why they sudenly want them off.
A patent that describes both a Walkman and an iPod? How far into the "idea, not implementation" and "obvious" fields does one have to wander to not get a few million from someone who actualy did what you only had a fogy idea of?
Less clicking is good for mindless zombies, potentialy clueful users and those who know what they are doing. "Next-next-next" lumps the second in with the first and anoys the third.
I would also question why he considers application installers that train users to mindlesly click a button until the wizard goes away are good things.
What about Wikipedia, they refused to censor and where blocked, then brought up in filtered form, who does that?
IE7 still doesn't support XHTML.
Whether it's trusted or treacherous computing doesn't really depend on the technology itself, it depends on who controls the signing keys.
...but you have the freedom to call it whatever you want. Everyone seems to leave that part out, it's even in the FSF's GNU/Linux FAQ.
Please don't lump encryption and DRM together, encryption governs access, DRM governs post-access.
I have four letters for you: nXML. Thank you.