Almost a year ago, Jim Jagielski, a member of the Apache OpenOffice Project Management Committee, insisted things were going well and claimed there was renewed interest in the project.
Sorry guys, that was just me looking to see whether it was still possible to convert 15 year old files from.SDW format to.ODT when I transferred old data to a new PC.
True story: When I lived in Huntsville I was once stuck in traffic behind an old pickup truck with two bumper stickers. One was for a local country music station, but the second one read "My other vehicle is unmanned."
The sulfuric acid itself might be useful. It shouldn't be too hard to split into SO3 and H2O.
SO2 was used as a refrigerant prior to WWII, and could be produced by reducing the SO3, then used to cool the airship to temperatures more suitable for electronics/experiments/humans.
I hear you. Back when I was looking for a job I had similar problems.
I'm a chemist. I've spent years studying various types of chemistry. Chemistry is something I do--sometimes in the lab with actual chemicals, and other times on paper when I'm thinking about what to do in the lab. So naturally the word "chemistry" will be part of several phrases on my resume, and will be used in search engines to find matching jobs.
Now, you've had problems with touchy-feely HR people demanding that you be "enthusiastic" or even "in love with" you chosen work. But me? I got a crapload of irrelevant "matches" based on the word "chemistry". Apparently this same school of touchy-feely HR thought gives me a 99% false positive rate on job searches, because everyone is looking for someone "with the right chemistry to join us."
Attention HR people: You expect a certain amount of professionalism from me if I'll be working for your company. I expect the same from you. Quit writing job descriptions like you're planning to use them as an OKCupid profile.
I don't agree. People that read the NYT or other newspapers are not idiots. They have presumably attended school up to 12th grade and maybe even college. They should have as part of their general culture at least a "basic" understanding of maths.
People who edit and typically write for the NYT times on the other hand....
I take it you don't live in a state where anyone has tried to drag the "ID vs. evolution" issue into political debate recently. The problem is that for most people "true" means "I want to believe this", not "This can be independently verified".
It might be better to go find experts in the field, and have them write short articles for the general public that are about established but not widely known things.
I'm not convinced. In principle it sounds great, but in practice you'll have a lot of resistance coming from several different groups:
)1) Christian fundamentalists who have no room for uncertainty in their model of the universe. To them, you might as well be reading from the Necronomicon, because anything that's unknown can't be declared true, anything that isn't true must be a lie, and all lies come from Satan.
2) New age crystal wavers who are still convinced that quantum mechanics proves there are many celestial planes (many worlds interpretation), sympathetic magic really works (entanglement), and that reality is shaped by our consciousness (Copenhagen interpretation). Never mind that the associations they make are utterly baseless, and the interpretations they're based upon actually contradict one another to some extent...
3) All the people who got sold on poorly written work that was dumbed down "for the public" in the past, (Pretty much anyone who's convinced that entanglement means FTL communication and Star Trek-style teleportation are just around the corner)
What's in common here? These people think they already know, and your attempts to enlighten them will initially only reveal how confused they are. This works aqainst you, because for them certainty and truth are not objective (but abstract) measures of how well a theory does or doesn't work, but feelings... and you just made them feel uncertain/bad, so what you are telling them is "less true than what they already know", which makes you clearly a "Satanic deceiver" / "conspirator suppressing the truth" / "clueless idiot who didn't read the Quantum Physics for Complete Morons sidebar in their favorite gaming magazine last month".
Not to say this isn't worth doing, just that you need to set your expectations very low.
I've been reading Slashdot for over a dozen years, and I don't even have a UID because I never bothered signing up for an account. If I signed up now it'd be a very large number, and so would have a low perceived "seniority", and yet I remember when the Columbine and Hellmouth stories were posted here.
See, now we know you're faking it. If you could actually remember when the Columbine and Hellmouth stories were posted here, your nostalgia would be tainted by the memories of JonKatz articles.
One of the reasons silicon is great for mass-produced anything: silicon simply happens to be one of the most common and easily refined elements on Earth.
The fact that pure silicon is an intrinsic semiconductor doesn't hurt, either. Just try making intrinsic GaAs...the amount of precision required to avoid making p-type or n-type material is ridiculous.
Well, there are UFOs. They're probably not aliens though, just some advanced planes that are still classified, the way the SR-71 and F-117 were a few decades ago. And also, the NSA IS spying on all Americans. Snowden's being hung out to dry because he gave confirmation for that fact.
I've got no evidence to back it up, so you can take this as a conspiracy theory if you like:
My pet theory about the sudden popularity of UFOs from the middle of the 20th century onwards is that we actually had some foreign incursions into our airspace during the cold war. The cover-ups were real, but the whole "extraterrestrials are coming to earth" bit was just a second level of obfuscation--If you don't want people investigating how enemies slipped past our defenses, convince the general public that only crackpots are looking past the surface level explanation for sightings.
That said, there are UFO-like sightings dating back for centuries, and some people are highly susceptible to suggestion, so the second level of deception was wildly successful. In fact, a bit too successful, since it spawned another controversy that has persisted decades after the usefulness of the cover-up expired.
Clinton was impeached because HE LIED UNDER OATH. It had absolutely nothing to do with having sex, as much as you liberals hate when one of your heroes is criticized.
And Al Capone was jailed for tax evasion. It had absolutely nothing to do with involvement in organized crime.
Rather missing the point.
The right-wingers weren't trying to smear Clinton by painting him as some kind of sex fiend, they were trying to paint him as a perjurer so they could reopen the Whitewater investigation.
They had a legitimate point, but it became a major case of "not seeing the forest for the trees", and they spent entirely too much of the public's time and money trying to pin down inconsequential details.
"I am currently pursuing a bachelor's in CompSci and I just spent three hours working on a few differential equations for homework. It is very frustrating because I just don't grok advanced math. I can sort of understand a little bit, but I really don't grok anything beyond long division."
Don't rush into judgement on this. There can be several reasons why you have difficulty with math.
First, it could be as you say, but consider the alternatives:
Second, it could be that you just need to review the background material, or even that you overlooked something early in a course. Whenever I reach the "I'm lost" stage, I try to back up to where I first became slightly confused...then back up one or two steps further.
It could be a motivation issue. Try looking ahead to see where you're trying to go--for instance, the seemingly pointless epsilon-delta definition of limits that most calculus textbooks starts off with is only there because they intend to use the concept of limits in explaining integrals, derivatives, and infinite series. Without seeing where you're going, half of the first semester of calculus will seem like pointless bullshit.
It can also be that the instructor isn't good at teaching large groups. First, I would try asking the instructor for help in class--it may be he needs a nudge to remind him he's skipped over something important. If that doesn't help, try contacting him outside of class--odds are good you'll get better communication when he's trying to help one or two students as opposed to 120. If that still doesn't work for you, see if another professor or even another student can explain what you're having trouble with.
Note that the earth's atmosphere, at ~15psi sea level pressure, is equivalent to being under ~10m of water. While there's less solar irradiation at the surface of Mars, there's also not much of a magnetosphere to divert lots of charged radiation. So, to rough order of magnitude, one would need about the same amount of shielding as offered by Earth's atmosphere: about fifteen pounds of material per square inch, requiring a shell on order of 10 meters thick. That's a lot of material to melt/form! We're not talking about a couple-inch-thick shell, but an extremely thick and heavy structure. Tunneling underground would be a much more practical way to accomplish this than trying to sinter new structures on the surface. Of course, that doesn't fix the problem of dangerous doses on the trip over.
This cloth shield you speak of could be refined, perhaps. It only needs to protect people, so you could reduce it to human-shaped cloth bundles so you don't waste material shielding unoccupied surface area. Once colonists get crops growing they could use less expensive straw as a construction material, thus giving each colonist a straw man to hide behind.
Alternatively, you could own up to the part you're trying to ignore, where he said "sandbags packed with regolith". I'm pretty sure you need a minimal thickness of cloth to contain a much thicker load of dirt.
You make it sound like any fertilizer will work in any situation as a "one size fits all" position. That isn't how you grow plants, which needs a much more balanced approach and several different kinds chemicals.
I don't know where you get that conclusion from. The prior poster asserted that ALL fertilizer is explosive, and I merely pointed out that's false in the vast majority of cases. I was in fact pointing out that his "one size fits all" position was bunk.
Most fertilizers contain less than 5% nitrate nitrogen, since plants are able to utilize more than one form of nitrogen. Thus there are formulations using ammonium phosphate, ammonium sulfate, urea, biuret, etc.
Industrial explosion kills 100+ from the last i was reading.
You need to start thinking critically about where you get your information. At this point, there are only two confirmed dead and six missing firefighters (probably also dead, but you never know)
The cause of the explosion is not precisely known, but the plant was on fire beforehand.
Golly, do you think there's a connection?
"Explosion" can mean many things--from a pile of ammonium nitrate being detonated to failure of a tank or tube in an air compressor.
There is a world of difference between how you need to deal with an ammonium nitrate explosion ("Everything within a mile is flattened and on fire") vs rupture of an anhydrous ammonia tank ("Evacuate everyone 17 miles downwind".)
Fertilizer itself is inert, but under certain conditions it may explode. In any case after that bombing sale of fertilizer is severly restricded and I suppose non-farmers are not even capable of obtaining big amount of it. So, if somone wants to make a huge explosion by fertilizer the only other option (apart from stealing it) is to set it on fire wherever it may be.
What you are saying only applies to ammonium nitrate fertilizer.
Ammonium phosphate is also commonly used as an ingredient for fertilizers, and not only won't explode--it's actually used in fire extinguishers.
No it isn't gone, it just takes longer to reply because it's crawling back from chasing kids off the lawn.
(Seriously, wait longer before browsing the comments and you'll see it's true).
It's still the same old/. with no proper character support, worse editing, worse stories, worse comments, worse trolls, worse jokes, worse whining, and worse moderation --just like ten years ago!:D
Cptn. Obvious says: "It was 2003 ten years ago". Thanks captain.
It's lacking something--something like overly long JonKatz articles where the "facts" are entirely made up in a thinly-veiled attempt to hide the author's ignorance of which he speaks.
This doesn't have anything to do with swampland really, rather it has to with the limestone that makes up the base of Florida. Same with really anywhere there's limestone, Ontario, Michigan, parts of Quebec, large swaths of the NE US. Some places are more stable than others and don't have to worry about it. And there's no much you can do in some cases, and while the limestone is thick where I live several hundred feet there have been huge sink holes.
Does Michigan even have much in the way of sinkholes or caves? My understanding was that glaciers in the last ice age scrubbed away most of the rock that was conducive to cave formation.
This sets off a reaction in which one of the neutrons in the nickel atom splits into a proton, an electron and an antineutrino. This changes the nickel into copper, and releases energy without dangerous ionizing radiation.
So l do not really see a recycling/upgrading/replacing process.
Thanks for quoting that particular bit. This illustrates a point about trying to "dumb down" theories for the general public to understand.
I love how they describe beta decay in the same breath as they say "without dangerous ionizing radiation" in that quote.
More from TFA:
Instead of using radioactive elements like uranium or plutonium, LENR uses a lattice or sponge of nickel atoms, which holds ionized hydrogen atoms like a sponge holds water.
A bit misleading there, since there may be no radioactive fuel sitting around, but they supposedly produce a radioactive nickel isotope in the process. (Nickel and copper are naturally slightly radioactive, but it's so weak I'll cut them some slack on that point) Still, I'd like to see some numbers to back up the idea that all slow neutrons would immediately react with the nickel, with none escaping into nearby materials.
At this point, I'm thinking the author is trying too hard to simplify his explanation. Or I might be giving him too much credit since he seems to be whitewashing the subject just a little bit.
Still more from TFA:
In past years, several labs have blown up while studying LENR and windows have melted – showing that if it really works, it can produce an impressive amount of energy.
Or, this could have nothing to do with LENR, and simply indicate that some LENR researchers are ignorant of the fact that nickel (along with palladium and platinum, if the LENR experiment used one of those instead) are commonly used as catalysts for reacting hydrogen with unsaturated molecules like oxygen, and promptly blew up the experiment by not removing/excluding said element from the apparatus.
OK, forget what I said about the author oversimplifying this for the public. He's clearly either trying to share his kool-aid, or hopelessly ignorant. Probably both.
Re:My experience with the GIMP
on
The Book of GIMP
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Well, it would be nice if they would pick a UI and stick with it. It seems like whenever someone publishes a good book on how to use GIMP, the GIMP team immediately overhauls the UI, changing all the menus to make most of the text utterly useless. Alternatively, the blame can be placed on the authors and publishers for releasing a book when they know a new UI is forthcoming. It's not like they don't have access to the prerelease versions of the new UI.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry guys, that was just me looking to see whether it was still possible to convert 15 year old files from .SDW format to .ODT when I transferred old data to a new PC.
True story:
When I lived in Huntsville I was once stuck in traffic behind an old pickup truck with two bumper stickers. One was for a local country music station, but the second one read "My other vehicle is unmanned."
SO2 was used as a refrigerant prior to WWII, and could be produced by reducing the SO3, then used to cool the airship to temperatures more suitable for electronics/experiments/humans.
I hear you. Back when I was looking for a job I had similar problems.
I'm a chemist. I've spent years studying various types of chemistry. Chemistry is something I do--sometimes in the lab with actual chemicals, and other times on paper when I'm thinking about what to do in the lab. So naturally the word "chemistry" will be part of several phrases on my resume, and will be used in search engines to find matching jobs.
Now, you've had problems with touchy-feely HR people demanding that you be "enthusiastic" or even "in love with" you chosen work. But me? I got a crapload of irrelevant "matches" based on the word "chemistry".
Apparently this same school of touchy-feely HR thought gives me a 99% false positive rate on job searches, because everyone is looking for someone "with the right chemistry to join us."
Attention HR people: You expect a certain amount of professionalism from me if I'll be working for your company. I expect the same from you. Quit writing job descriptions like you're planning to use them as an OKCupid profile.
Of course they know, they don't work for Comcast because they're incompetent.
There's incompetent, and then there's just plain lazy.
Why do research or analysis when you can just Google "Comcast torrent"?
Why waste time filtering the results when most hosting providers will cave in to your demands without checking their validity?
I don't agree. People that read the NYT or other newspapers are not idiots. They have presumably attended school up to 12th grade and maybe even college. They should have as part of their general culture at least a "basic" understanding of maths.
People who edit and typically write for the NYT times on the other hand....
I take it you don't live in a state where anyone has tried to drag the "ID vs. evolution" issue into political debate recently. The problem is that for most people "true" means "I want to believe this", not "This can be independently verified".
It might be better to go find experts in the field, and have them write short articles for the general public that are about established but not widely known things.
I'm not convinced. In principle it sounds great, but in practice you'll have a lot of resistance coming from several different groups:
)1) Christian fundamentalists who have no room for uncertainty in their model of the universe. To them, you might as well be reading from the Necronomicon, because anything that's unknown can't be declared true, anything that isn't true must be a lie, and all lies come from Satan.
2) New age crystal wavers who are still convinced that quantum mechanics proves there are many celestial planes (many worlds interpretation), sympathetic magic really works (entanglement), and that reality is shaped by our consciousness (Copenhagen interpretation). Never mind that the associations they make are utterly baseless, and the interpretations they're based upon actually contradict one another to some extent...
3) All the people who got sold on poorly written work that was dumbed down "for the public" in the past, (Pretty much anyone who's convinced that entanglement means FTL communication and Star Trek-style teleportation are just around the corner)
What's in common here? These people think they already know, and your attempts to enlighten them will initially only reveal how confused they are. This works aqainst you, because for them certainty and truth are not objective (but abstract) measures of how well a theory does or doesn't work, but feelings... and you just made them feel uncertain/bad, so what you are telling them is "less true than what they already know", which makes you clearly a "Satanic deceiver" / "conspirator suppressing the truth" / "clueless idiot who didn't read the Quantum Physics for Complete Morons sidebar in their favorite gaming magazine last month".
Not to say this isn't worth doing, just that you need to set your expectations very low.
I've been reading Slashdot for over a dozen years, and I don't even have a UID because I never bothered signing up for an account. If I signed up now it'd be a very large number, and so would have a low perceived "seniority", and yet I remember when the Columbine and Hellmouth stories were posted here.
See, now we know you're faking it. If you could actually remember when the Columbine and Hellmouth stories were posted here, your nostalgia would be tainted by the memories of JonKatz articles.
The fact that pure silicon is an intrinsic semiconductor doesn't hurt, either. Just try making intrinsic GaAs...the amount of precision required to avoid making p-type or n-type material is ridiculous.
Well, there are UFOs. They're probably not aliens though, just some advanced planes that are still classified, the way the SR-71 and F-117 were a few decades ago. And also, the NSA IS spying on all Americans. Snowden's being hung out to dry because he gave confirmation for that fact.
I've got no evidence to back it up, so you can take this as a conspiracy theory if you like:
My pet theory about the sudden popularity of UFOs from the middle of the 20th century onwards is that we actually had some foreign incursions into our airspace during the cold war. The cover-ups were real, but the whole "extraterrestrials are coming to earth" bit was just a second level of obfuscation--If you don't want people investigating how enemies slipped past our defenses, convince the general public that only crackpots are looking past the surface level explanation for sightings.
That said, there are UFO-like sightings dating back for centuries, and some people are highly susceptible to suggestion, so the second level of deception was wildly successful. In fact, a bit too successful, since it spawned another controversy that has persisted decades after the usefulness of the cover-up expired.
Clinton was impeached because HE LIED UNDER OATH. It had absolutely nothing to do with having sex, as much as you liberals hate when one of your heroes is criticized.
And Al Capone was jailed for tax evasion. It had absolutely nothing to do with involvement in organized crime.
Rather missing the point.
The right-wingers weren't trying to smear Clinton by painting him as some kind of sex fiend, they were trying to paint him as a perjurer so they could reopen the Whitewater investigation.
They had a legitimate point, but it became a major case of "not seeing the forest for the trees", and they spent entirely too much of the public's time and money trying to pin down inconsequential details.
Coincidence?
There are no coincidences.
They stopped sending men to the moon about the time I learned to talk. You should pay more attention to my posts.
"I am currently pursuing a bachelor's in CompSci and I just spent three hours working on a few differential equations for homework. It is very frustrating because I just don't grok advanced math. I can sort of understand a little bit, but I really don't grok anything beyond long division."
Don't rush into judgement on this. There can be several reasons why you have difficulty with math.
First, it could be as you say, but consider the alternatives:
Second, it could be that you just need to review the background material, or even that you overlooked something early in a course. Whenever I reach the "I'm lost" stage, I try to back up to where I first became slightly confused...then back up one or two steps further.
It could be a motivation issue. Try looking ahead to see where you're trying to go--for instance, the seemingly pointless epsilon-delta definition of limits that most calculus textbooks starts off with is only there because they intend to use the concept of limits in explaining integrals, derivatives, and infinite series. Without seeing where you're going, half of the first semester of calculus will seem like pointless bullshit.
It can also be that the instructor isn't good at teaching large groups. First, I would try asking the instructor for help in class--it may be he needs a nudge to remind him he's skipped over something important. If that doesn't help, try contacting him outside of class--odds are good you'll get better communication when he's trying to help one or two students as opposed to 120. If that still doesn't work for you, see if another professor or even another student can explain what you're having trouble with.
Note that the earth's atmosphere, at ~15psi sea level pressure, is equivalent to being under ~10m of water. While there's less solar irradiation at the surface of Mars, there's also not much of a magnetosphere to divert lots of charged radiation. So, to rough order of magnitude, one would need about the same amount of shielding as offered by Earth's atmosphere: about fifteen pounds of material per square inch, requiring a shell on order of 10 meters thick. That's a lot of material to melt/form! We're not talking about a couple-inch-thick shell, but an extremely thick and heavy structure. Tunneling underground would be a much more practical way to accomplish this than trying to sinter new structures on the surface. Of course, that doesn't fix the problem of dangerous doses on the trip over.
This cloth shield you speak of could be refined, perhaps. It only needs to protect people, so you could reduce it to human-shaped cloth bundles so you don't waste material shielding unoccupied surface area. Once colonists get crops growing they could use less expensive straw as a construction material, thus giving each colonist a straw man to hide behind.
Alternatively, you could own up to the part you're trying to ignore, where he said "sandbags packed with regolith". I'm pretty sure you need a minimal thickness of cloth to contain a much thicker load of dirt.
You make it sound like any fertilizer will work in any situation as a "one size fits all" position. That isn't how you grow plants, which needs a much more balanced approach and several different kinds chemicals.
I don't know where you get that conclusion from. The prior poster asserted that ALL fertilizer is explosive, and I merely pointed out that's false in the vast majority of cases. I was in fact pointing out that his "one size fits all" position was bunk.
Most fertilizers contain less than 5% nitrate nitrogen, since plants are able to utilize more than one form of nitrogen. Thus there are formulations using ammonium phosphate, ammonium sulfate, urea, biuret, etc.
Industrial explosion kills 100+ from the last i was reading.
You need to start thinking critically about where you get your information. At this point, there are only two confirmed dead and six missing firefighters (probably also dead, but you never know)
The cause of the explosion is not precisely known, but the plant was on fire beforehand.
Golly, do you think there's a connection?
"Explosion" can mean many things--from a pile of ammonium nitrate being detonated to failure of a tank or tube in an air compressor.
There is a world of difference between how you need to deal with an ammonium nitrate explosion ("Everything within a mile is flattened and on fire") vs rupture of an anhydrous ammonia tank ("Evacuate everyone 17 miles downwind".)
Fertilizer itself is inert, but under certain conditions it may explode. In any case after that bombing sale of fertilizer is severly restricded and I suppose non-farmers are not even capable of obtaining big amount of it. So, if somone wants to make a huge explosion by fertilizer the only other option (apart from stealing it) is to set it on fire wherever it may be.
What you are saying only applies to ammonium nitrate fertilizer.
Ammonium phosphate is also commonly used as an ingredient for fertilizers, and not only won't explode--it's actually used in fire extinguishers.
." And these "fuse boxes" are an important target for terrorists, so this will obviously fall under the DHS
Fuses are an essential component of bombmaking, so anyone who buys or sells them will be placed on the no-fly list.
No it isn't gone, it just takes longer to reply because it's crawling back from chasing kids off the lawn.
(Seriously, wait longer before browsing the comments and you'll see it's true).
It's still the same old /. with no proper character support, worse editing, worse stories, worse comments, worse trolls, worse jokes, worse whining, and worse moderation --just like ten years ago! :D
Cptn. Obvious says: "It was 2003 ten years ago". Thanks captain.
It's lacking something--something like overly long JonKatz articles where the "facts" are entirely made up in a thinly-veiled attempt to hide the author's ignorance of which he speaks.
This doesn't have anything to do with swampland really, rather it has to with the limestone that makes up the base of Florida. Same with really anywhere there's limestone, Ontario, Michigan, parts of Quebec, large swaths of the NE US. Some places are more stable than others and don't have to worry about it. And there's no much you can do in some cases, and while the limestone is thick where I live several hundred feet there have been huge sink holes.
Does Michigan even have much in the way of sinkholes or caves? My understanding was that glaciers in the last ice age scrubbed away most of the rock that was conducive to cave formation.
From the article:
This sets off a reaction in which one of the neutrons in the nickel atom splits into a proton, an electron and an antineutrino. This changes the nickel into copper, and releases energy without dangerous ionizing radiation.
So l do not really see a recycling/upgrading/replacing process.
Thanks for quoting that particular bit. This illustrates a point about trying to "dumb down" theories for the general public to understand.
I love how they describe beta decay in the same breath as they say "without dangerous ionizing radiation" in that quote.
More from TFA:
Instead of using radioactive elements like uranium or plutonium, LENR uses a lattice or sponge of nickel atoms, which holds ionized hydrogen atoms like a sponge holds water.
A bit misleading there, since there may be no radioactive fuel sitting around, but they supposedly produce a radioactive nickel isotope in the process. (Nickel and copper are naturally slightly radioactive, but it's so weak I'll cut them some slack on that point) Still, I'd like to see some numbers to back up the idea that all slow neutrons would immediately react with the nickel, with none escaping into nearby materials.
At this point, I'm thinking the author is trying too hard to simplify his explanation. Or I might be giving him too much credit since he seems to be whitewashing the subject just a little bit.
Still more from TFA:
In past years, several labs have blown up while studying LENR and windows have melted – showing that if it really works, it can produce an impressive amount of energy.
Or, this could have nothing to do with LENR, and simply indicate that some LENR researchers are ignorant of the fact that nickel (along with palladium and platinum, if the LENR experiment used one of those instead) are commonly used as catalysts for reacting hydrogen with unsaturated molecules like oxygen, and promptly blew up the experiment by not removing/excluding said element from the apparatus.
OK, forget what I said about the author oversimplifying this for the public. He's clearly either trying to share his kool-aid, or hopelessly ignorant. Probably both.
Well, it would be nice if they would pick a UI and stick with it.
It seems like whenever someone publishes a good book on how to use GIMP, the GIMP team immediately overhauls the UI, changing all the menus to make most of the text utterly useless.
Alternatively, the blame can be placed on the authors and publishers for releasing a book when they know a new UI is forthcoming. It's not like they don't have access to the prerelease versions of the new UI.
That reminds me, are we getting close to time for the semiannual "scientists prove bumblebees really can fly, if they flap their wings" dupe yet?
Actually, some of us are chemists, believe it or not.
And I'm pretty sure Phil Plait would have a bit to say about anything astronomical.