Actually, you work with several "ACTUAL designers". There are a lot of other "ACTUAL designers" who don't work with you, and not all of them think that the GIMP is ugly or a piece of shit.
The fact is, we are living in a modern world now. And I happen to like my comfortable, air-conditioned home. I do not like staying outside under a hot sun being bitten by bugs, because, you know, it isn't comfortable. Does this mean I am an anti-nature freak? No. I love the smell of the air after rain, and a beautiful sunset can bring me close to tears.
What I'm trying to say here is that yes, I prefer spending my time in front of my computer to riding a bike, but is this truly bad? There is a strong tendency to talk about the evils of single-mindedness and how much better our lives would be, "if only Dad had taken me on camping trips when I was a kid!", and yet here you are, sitting at your computer, reading this message. You can try to inflict your own moral values on your offspring, but I suspect that for most of you, it would simply be an excuse for your own poor behavior; attempting to correct the sins of the father in the next generation.
Change that last sentence to "I can see why many evil parents would" and you'll have a pretty acurate reflection of what the people affected by this software (i.e., the children of these parents) will think. There's nothing like an absolute slap-in-the-face "No we don't trust you" to make one want to circumvent the rules. If I believed that playing games turns sweet little tykes with roses in their eyes into evil bastard murderers, this software would have some value. But it won't, because those tykes aren't sweet to begin with. They're human.
Who's the more foolish, the fool who posted the article or the fool that takes time to write a response to something he apparently holds in such disdain?
Personally, I'm a big fan of single-window/palette-based interfaces. Examples are Blender and ZBrush. Though both look quite distinct, they both keep everything in a single window, and keep everything organized for you. Tools can be reorganized by dragging palettes around, but they always fit neatly into shelves and panels, instead of floating over the image you're trying to edit. The key being that the computer is plenty smart enough to take care of managing my windows for me; I'd much rather be doing art than damaging the already sore muscles in my wrist by carefully positioning windows manually.
(Incidentally, I've been experimenting with a palette-based interface of my own http://sharp3d.sourceforge.net/, which is probably why I'm so attached to them.;) )
As a satisfied user of the Do-Not-Call list, I can point out a key flaw
of the proposed change -- it benefits the corporation, not the
individual. For too many years, any household with a telephone has been
bombarded with an intolerable level of unwanted advertisement. The
purpose of the telephone is communication. Communication is
bidirectional. The Do-Not-Call list protects communication from being
replaced by the one-sided soliloquy of the direct advertisement.
Clearly, this does not benefit the companies which must now redirect
their marketing efforts along other channels; the benefits are instead
enjoyed by the public in general. It is the individual who must be
protected, and it is the FTC's responsibility to do so. And the FTC has
done so -- a strong defense has been given to the public. But a defense
is only as strong as its weakest point. The danger of the proposed
change is in its admission that it is perfectly acceptable for a company
to violate the Do-Not-Call list barrier, by making a trivial
modification to the method of transmission. The additional "requirement"
of an established business relationship is completely irrelevent; such a
proviso is mere fluff, as no possible method of enforcement is
available.
The Do-Not-Call list is a powerful tool to rebalance the uses of the
telephone. I strongly urge that it be allowed to remain strong, not
gutted to serve the interests of corporations.
As someone who had precisely one lesson in school to do with electronics (7th grade generic-science class), I can tell you this: they may all be new to it, but they live in the modern world; don't assume they're stupid. If you bring in a class set of 9-volt batteries plus LEDs, they will have good cause for thinking you are stupid.
As is says on the site linked to in the article above, "Waimea is a highly customizable window manager", meaning it is not an X server, and doesn't compete with Keith's X server or any other X server because it is something quite different.
Just a personal observation...
on
Hackers On Atkins
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Perhaps it is time for "a good diet" to mean "foods that are helpful for the body", not "weight loss".
Since my computer is not a critical, data-filled, work-type computer, running (potentially) unstable kernels is not a problem for me. But the test series is quite stable, and I've had no problems with it. Not to mention that there are quite a lot of new features in it that I simply couldn't wait for months to get!
As a fairly new GNU/Linux user myself, I've found compiling and running new kernels to be quite easy. I should mention, though, that my early efforts failed completely. This was when I was running Red Hat 9. I guess RH needs something special; at any rate I never got 2.6.0-testX to run on it. I am now using Gentoo, and everything seems to be working extremely well, and I'm currently running test8-mm1. I recommend you read this tutorial written for the 2.6 kernel: http://kerneltrap.org/node/view/799.
Good luck.:)
-M
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, you work with several "ACTUAL designers". There are a lot of other "ACTUAL designers" who don't work with you, and not all of them think that the GIMP is ugly or a piece of shit.
Replace "young kids" with "Slashdot readers", and that statement would be just about right.
The fact is, we are living in a modern world now. And I happen to like my comfortable, air-conditioned home. I do not like staying outside under a hot sun being bitten by bugs, because, you know, it isn't comfortable. Does this mean I am an anti-nature freak? No. I love the smell of the air after rain, and a beautiful sunset can bring me close to tears.
What I'm trying to say here is that yes, I prefer spending my time in front of my computer to riding a bike, but is this truly bad? There is a strong tendency to talk about the evils of single-mindedness and how much better our lives would be, "if only Dad had taken me on camping trips when I was a kid!", and yet here you are, sitting at your computer, reading this message. You can try to inflict your own moral values on your offspring, but I suspect that for most of you, it would simply be an excuse for your own poor behavior; attempting to correct the sins of the father in the next generation.
It's called hypocrisy, my friends.
I can't believe I'm actually hearing this: "You're different, and that's bad!"
Lovely message. It's fun to persecute people for being different!
From TFA, it was 58 people, not 29.
Change that last sentence to "I can see why many evil parents would" and you'll have a pretty acurate reflection of what the people affected by this software (i.e., the children of these parents) will think. There's nothing like an absolute slap-in-the-face "No we don't trust you" to make one want to circumvent the rules. If I believed that playing games turns sweet little tykes with roses in their eyes into evil bastard murderers, this software would have some value. But it won't, because those tykes aren't sweet to begin with. They're human.
Who's the more foolish, the fool who posted the article or the fool that takes time to write a response to something he apparently holds in such disdain?
Personally, I'm a big fan of single-window/palette-based interfaces. Examples are Blender and ZBrush. Though both look quite distinct, they both keep everything in a single window, and keep everything organized for you. Tools can be reorganized by dragging palettes around, but they always fit neatly into shelves and panels, instead of floating over the image you're trying to edit. The key being that the computer is plenty smart enough to take care of managing my windows for me; I'd much rather be doing art than damaging the already sore muscles in my wrist by carefully positioning windows manually. (Incidentally, I've been experimenting with a palette-based interface of my own http://sharp3d.sourceforge.net/, which is probably why I'm so attached to them. ;) )
My reply:
As a satisfied user of the Do-Not-Call list, I can point out a key flaw of the proposed change -- it benefits the corporation, not the individual. For too many years, any household with a telephone has been bombarded with an intolerable level of unwanted advertisement. The purpose of the telephone is communication. Communication is bidirectional. The Do-Not-Call list protects communication from being replaced by the one-sided soliloquy of the direct advertisement. Clearly, this does not benefit the companies which must now redirect their marketing efforts along other channels; the benefits are instead enjoyed by the public in general. It is the individual who must be protected, and it is the FTC's responsibility to do so. And the FTC has done so -- a strong defense has been given to the public. But a defense is only as strong as its weakest point. The danger of the proposed change is in its admission that it is perfectly acceptable for a company to violate the Do-Not-Call list barrier, by making a trivial modification to the method of transmission. The additional "requirement" of an established business relationship is completely irrelevent; such a proviso is mere fluff, as no possible method of enforcement is available.
The Do-Not-Call list is a powerful tool to rebalance the uses of the telephone. I strongly urge that it be allowed to remain strong, not gutted to serve the interests of corporations.
As someone who had precisely one lesson in school to do with electronics (7th grade generic-science class), I can tell you this: they may all be new to it, but they live in the modern world; don't assume they're stupid. If you bring in a class set of 9-volt batteries plus LEDs, they will have good cause for thinking you are stupid.
As is says on the site linked to in the article above, "Waimea is a highly customizable window manager", meaning it is not an X server, and doesn't compete with Keith's X server or any other X server because it is something quite different.
Perhaps it is time for "a good diet" to mean "foods that are helpful for the body", not "weight loss".
Since my computer is not a critical, data-filled, work-type computer, running (potentially) unstable kernels is not a problem for me. But the test series is quite stable, and I've had no problems with it. Not to mention that there are quite a lot of new features in it that I simply couldn't wait for months to get!
As a fairly new GNU/Linux user myself, I've found compiling and running new kernels to be quite easy. I should mention, though, that my early efforts failed completely. This was when I was running Red Hat 9. I guess RH needs something special; at any rate I never got 2.6.0-testX to run on it. I am now using Gentoo, and everything seems to be working extremely well, and I'm currently running test8-mm1. I recommend you read this tutorial written for the 2.6 kernel: http://kerneltrap.org/node/view/799. Good luck. :)
-M