If you think lack of CMYK support isn't enough to keep GIMP from being used by people in the printing industry, you're either ignorant or just too stubborn to see that GIMP isn't ready to replace Photoshop in the real world.
Or maybe he just uses Scribus to export his finished work to press ready CMYK pdf's, like I do.
Even if you ignore the interface and a number of other shortcomings, the lack of CMYK support makes it IMPOSSIBLE for it to be used in a graphic arts environment for printed products.
I do graphic design professionally -- both freelance and fulltime. I once did all the typesetting, etc. for a 600+ page illustrated children's book using nothing more than Gimp, Inkscape, and Scribus. I did all the raster image editing in the Gimp. When it came time to go to press, I just exported to PDF from Scribus (makes excellent press-ready pdf's), which performed a very accurate conversion to CMYK for me. Problem solved.
You must not be talking about the same Photoshop I've used. All Adobe products are notorious for poor UI design -- especially hiding features. PS is no exception.
People seem to forget that, simply because GPL3 is coming out does not mean that GPL2 is going away. GPL2 is permanent! GPL2 Lasts forever. Sure developers can choose to use GPL3 if they want but, the fact that they used GPL2 does not require them to use GPL3.
I think the big deal will be that (if I'm reading things correctly) the GPL2 to GPL3 transition appears to be forward compatible (because of the "or any later version" part), but not backward. If the leaders of a project choose to go with GPL3 with all new releases, you will still be able to fork the old GPL2 version and develop it, but you will have to fork, and you won't be able to accept any patches from the official GPL3 version, because it will have additional restrictions which GPL2 prohibits. This could create something of a split in many of the projects that are currently staples of the Free Software community. I don't think this is all that bad, however. We may actually be ready for a split -- something to seperate the wheat from the chaff, if you know what I mean.
I think you're under the misassumption that everyone who has a gun is capable of controlling their anger and not acting like the animals that they are.
Not at all. I specifically accounted for it in my first post.
Plenty of people could get properly pissed and try to kill someone, even knowing the other person most likely has a gun on them as well.
I also made accounted for this. You might want to reread the entire post.
By your logic, the wild west would've been the pinnacle of order and peacefulness as so many people were armed. I
Not really. The wild west was a much politer society than ours currently is -- which thing is owed much to the prevalence of firearms. I don't consider obtaining a "pinnacle of order and peacefulness" necessary nor desireable -- just an acceptable level. Maintaining personal freedom and equality for all is much more important.
Let's think about this a bit more. When you talk of prohibiting firearms to certain individuals, who do expect to enforce it? What means will the use to enforce it? Probably firearms. This means that we aren't really talking about removing firearms from all, equally. We're talking about a legal monopoly of firearms for a specific class of people -- the "authorities." Why can these officials be trusted? Maybe they've been tested somehow to determine trust. Who made this test? Can they be trusted? Surely they wield much power. Are you aware that around 170 million people were murdered by their own government in the past century? This number is far higher than those killed in petty firearm crimes. How can we provide a check to such unbridled power with a history of extreme violence?
Public Schools aren't a failed system, over all it's a very successful system, look at the high school graduation numbers now compared to 50 years ago
Graduating from high school is not an indication of success.
look at the average literacy rates.
Maybe literacy has increased in Wisconsin over the last 50 years (maybe you could provide link to some data), but nationwide, literacy has dramatically declined.
You're right about this one. Although I think it probably should have.
The observations involved were analogous those in real evolutionary science.
Right you are. I didn't have any problem with the analogy to evolutionary science -- just to the ID/abiogenesis debate. Again, have a look at my response that I link to above.
Did you even read it?
Did you read my post? I don't attack him on the points you enumerate.
The same person who appointed you to represent humanity. It's good to know we have a mutual friend.
You mentioned a specific group with which you claim to identify and then proceeded to speak for that entire group when you used the word "we." I did neither of these.
Getting back to the whole bathtub thing... I actually thought that your detailed description of how the scientific method plays out was rather clever. I maintain, however, that you wholly missed the mark. Your analysis of the tub scenario seems to imply that, with enough application of the scientific method -- which you expertly portrayed*, ID can be shown to be either valid or invalid. This, by definition, however, is impossible. Allow me to explain.
I think your conclusions owe partly to an omission on the part of the OP in his original analogy. To make a clean correlation to the ID/abiogenesis debate, he should have specified that, after filling the tub, he released a swarm of nano-bots that broke down all evidence pointing toward the tub being filled beforehand and planted false evidence indicating the rate of drip had been constant -- all this on a molecular level (not to imply that the majority of ID adherents think that God used nano-bots, most probably do fall into the stereotype of drooling rednecks that believe in magic). Need I remind you that there exist those in the ID camp that think that the dinosaur bones were put there to test their faith? You see, this is what you're really up against. If the evidence has been purposefully tampered with on a level beyond our current ability to detect (which is basically what many ID people are claiming), all of the evidence mentioned in your analysis may not have even been left for discovery, and instead, false conclusions would have been drawn from the remaining false evidence.
As analogy has failed, please read some textbooks or web pages which I'm sure you'll find links to in other comments, and you'll find out how science works, and the overwelming wealth of evidence for evolution. E.g. the high level of agreement between phlogenies based on physical charactoristics and phlogenies based on DNA sequencing.
I already am firmly convinced of the existence of evolution. I don't doubt high level of agreement between phlogenies based on physical characteristics and phlogenies based on DNA sequencing. I provided no evidence to indicate that I was did. Maybe you divined this information through some supernatural means? A man of your understanding should surely understand the danger in making assumptions without any testable evidence. My beef was not with the details of your extension of the analogy. It was with:
the fact that none of this matters. The ID folk have the option of playing what amounts to "the supernatural card" whenever they like. Any attempt to demonstrate the invalidity of ID by piling on more and more scientific method is an exercise in futility.
The appalling hubris with which you prefaced your post when you spoke for an entire group of people.
*You might have changed things around a bit, however. Your extension of the original analogy actually resulted in the investigators *validating* the corollary to ID -- that the tub was originally full. This is what gives the impression that you misunderstood the original analogy in the first place.
We don't follow your straw-man portrayal of how science works.
Who, exactly, appointed you the sole authoritative spokesperson to represent the entire community of "evolutionary scientists?" You are correct that studying a bath tub would be rather trivial. It's a scenario that provides for easily reproduceable testing. Rather than fixating on the details of the bathtub, however, you were meant to extrapolate the analogy to something that is not easily observed and a set of events that are highly impracticle to reproduce. Are you so devoid of imagination as to make requisite this explanation? This really was fairly obvious and very easy to comprehend. Right over Mr. EvolutionaryScientist®'s head, I guess.
However, ensuring sale of firearms only to such people, and ensuring that such firearms will never be stolen and misused is impossible.
Determining beforehand who will misuse a firearm (or any potentially dangerous technology) is not necessary. There's a saying: "People can't be trusted with guns -- that's why everyone has to have them." Even if you are someone with a propensity to misuse your firearm, you can be held in check if you know that all those around you are also well armed and trained in their use. If you still ignore this and decide to misuse your firearm, you will quickly be gunned down in such surroundings. The bad apples will be outnumbered and outgunned by the good ones. There's a reason whay guns are referred to as "equalizers." Unfortunately, in today's modern, domesticated societies, guns have largely been concentrated into the hands of people with criminal intent -- which furthers the impression that guns are inherently bad. After all *everybody* knows that only bad people have them, right?.
As a psychologist, I need to have a name. Citation is more important. His name means nothing to me
Why do you think you need a name? The source of the information is irrelevant. Why aren't you capable of discussing something on its' own merits? What, you can't entertain an idea that doesn't have some slick BrandName® To back it up? Maybe you have a need to associate unfamiliar ideas with some individual that you can easily demonize, thus permitting you to sleep better after rejecting them? Changing the subject to a demonization of the messenger is a tactic taught in debate classes -- something practiced by those that are more concerned with "winning" an argument than getting to the truth of a matter. Discounting some information out of hand because it came from someone or something that doesn't fall 100% in-line with your personal idealogy is both foolish and dangerous. Psycologist? Please.
The source of the information is irrelevant. Why don't you discuss it on its' own merits, instead of resorting to demonizing the messenger. This is a tactic taught in debate class -- something practiced by those that are more concerned with "winning" an argument than getting to the truth of a matter. Discounting some information out of hand because it came from someone or something that doesn't fall 100% in-line with your personal idealogy is both foolish and dangerous.
BTW, the source of the article was the Anchorage Daily News, not your beloved BBV. Get a grip.
Being the dominant provider doesn't make a monopoly especially in search.
Not yet...
It's as democratic as it gets. I can type in any url I want when I'm looking for information
for now...
and google can do nothing to prevent that.
Yes they can. They can grow to the point where competing with them becomes futile. They can drive the other search engines out of business. Even now, maintenance, data storage, and sufficient processing power for a contstantly updating search that indexes the entire web has such a high bar of entry that many smaller offerings are effectively shut out of the market. This trend toward consolidation is poised only to continue. One day, you may wake up only to discover the other url's you used to type in to look for information are all out of business.
The above post reads like it was genereated by a corporate botnet that auto-posts to blogs and such that contain certain keywords.
this is a great step towards safer schools and the practical applications of biometrics.
Please. Copy-Paste straight from the marketing department. Completely souless tripe. Just give up all your liberty and get it over with, already. *Then* you'll be safe.
I've loved google in the past, but my only fear is that as they evolve into a defacto monopoly, their "do no evil" bit will be tossed. One dominant provider of any service (monopoly) is never a good thing, no matter how good the source started out. Power corrupts, and all that...
I don't share your sense of gloom. People today are living longer and better than 50 years ago.
Technology is neither moral nor immoral. It is amoral. It is neither good nor evil, but can be used for both and has the power to amplify both. I see both more good and more evil than existed 50 years ago -- primarily due to this amplification effect of technology. Therefore, technology can be neither be construed as a saviour from evil, nor a terrible departure from good. I expect to see more of the extremes in the future as technology improves and allows for their existence.
People below the poverty line in the USA today drive their own car, [emphasis mine]
Apparently you are using a very loose interpreteation of the word own. Even many people that are considered upper-middle-class are stuck in the perrenial debt-cycle -- never owning their own vehicle. You might more accurately say that people below the poverty line are permitted to drive the Bank®'s car in exchange for thier soul as a permanent slave to debt.
they have color TV's,
This is probably more of a detriment than benefit. Try turning off the tube and reading a book.
and they are vaccinated. None of them are going to be crippled by polio or die from the measles.
The society works hard to shrink them to a smaller and smaller percentage of the populace through education. Fify years ago I'll bet you the percentage of unskilled labor was much higher in the US than it is now.
Education? Is that what they claim to be doing in the government schools, nowadays? In reality, a much significantly higher percentage of USians were literate 50 years ago than are today. You're probably right about fewer unskilled laborers, though. What you failed to mention is that now they're all on welfare instead of laboring.
1. Visio replacement (dia can work but is not a complete replacement)
Agreed. Dia is crap, but DBDesigner4 will put Visio to shame in many respects. I'm not as familiar with the other two, but I'm willing to bet that a bit of googling will turn up suitable replacements there, as well.
Slashdot Mirror
Hate to break it to you... science is not the search for truth. That would probably fall under philosophy.
Or maybe he just uses Scribus to export his finished work to press ready CMYK pdf's, like I do.
I do graphic design professionally -- both freelance and fulltime. I once did all the typesetting, etc. for a 600+ page illustrated children's book using nothing more than Gimp, Inkscape, and Scribus. I did all the raster image editing in the Gimp. When it came time to go to press, I just exported to PDF from Scribus (makes excellent press-ready pdf's), which performed a very accurate conversion to CMYK for me. Problem solved.
You must not be talking about the same Photoshop I've used. All Adobe products are notorious for poor UI design -- especially hiding features. PS is no exception.
ImageMagick
I think you've hit on the main difference between the Open Source and Free Software movements:
There you have it folks. Choose ye this day whom ye will serve...but as for me and my house, we will serve Freedom.
I think the big deal will be that (if I'm reading things correctly) the GPL2 to GPL3 transition appears to be forward compatible (because of the "or any later version" part), but not backward. If the leaders of a project choose to go with GPL3 with all new releases, you will still be able to fork the old GPL2 version and develop it, but you will have to fork, and you won't be able to accept any patches from the official GPL3 version, because it will have additional restrictions which GPL2 prohibits. This could create something of a split in many of the projects that are currently staples of the Free Software community. I don't think this is all that bad, however. We may actually be ready for a split -- something to seperate the wheat from the chaff, if you know what I mean.
or get specific:
...creates a centered effect for block-level elements.
...will do the trick.
width: 50%;
margin-left: 25%;
For inline a simple:
text-align: center;
Not at all. I specifically accounted for it in my first post.
I also made accounted for this. You might want to reread the entire post.
Not really. The wild west was a much politer society than ours currently is -- which thing is owed much to the prevalence of firearms. I don't consider obtaining a "pinnacle of order and peacefulness" necessary nor desireable -- just an acceptable level. Maintaining personal freedom and equality for all is much more important.
Let's think about this a bit more. When you talk of prohibiting firearms to certain individuals, who do expect to enforce it? What means will the use to enforce it? Probably firearms. This means that we aren't really talking about removing firearms from all, equally. We're talking about a legal monopoly of firearms for a specific class of people -- the "authorities." Why can these officials be trusted? Maybe they've been tested somehow to determine trust. Who made this test? Can they be trusted? Surely they wield much power. Are you aware that around 170 million people were murdered by their own government in the past century? This number is far higher than those killed in petty firearm crimes. How can we provide a check to such unbridled power with a history of extreme violence?
The terms exist. They just aren't scientific.
Good points. Can you provide any links to more detailed information?
Graduating from high school is not an indication of success.
Maybe literacy has increased in Wisconsin over the last 50 years (maybe you could provide link to some data), but nationwide, literacy has dramatically declined.
No it wasn't. See my explanation of why.
You're right about this one. Although I think it probably should have.
Right you are. I didn't have any problem with the analogy to evolutionary science -- just to the ID/abiogenesis debate. Again, have a look at my response that I link to above.
Did you read my post? I don't attack him on the points you enumerate.
Well, at least you have a sense of humour.
You mentioned a specific group with which you claim to identify and then proceeded to speak for that entire group when you used the word "we." I did neither of these.
Getting back to the whole bathtub thing... I actually thought that your detailed description of how the scientific method plays out was rather clever. I maintain, however, that you wholly missed the mark. Your analysis of the tub scenario seems to imply that, with enough application of the scientific method -- which you expertly portrayed*, ID can be shown to be either valid or invalid. This, by definition, however, is impossible. Allow me to explain.
I think your conclusions owe partly to an omission on the part of the OP in his original analogy. To make a clean correlation to the ID/abiogenesis debate, he should have specified that, after filling the tub, he released a swarm of nano-bots that broke down all evidence pointing toward the tub being filled beforehand and planted false evidence indicating the rate of drip had been constant -- all this on a molecular level (not to imply that the majority of ID adherents think that God used nano-bots, most probably do fall into the stereotype of drooling rednecks that believe in magic). Need I remind you that there exist those in the ID camp that think that the dinosaur bones were put there to test their faith? You see, this is what you're really up against. If the evidence has been purposefully tampered with on a level beyond our current ability to detect (which is basically what many ID people are claiming), all of the evidence mentioned in your analysis may not have even been left for discovery, and instead, false conclusions would have been drawn from the remaining false evidence.
I already am firmly convinced of the existence of evolution. I don't doubt high level of agreement between phlogenies based on physical characteristics and phlogenies based on DNA sequencing. I provided no evidence to indicate that I was did. Maybe you divined this information through some supernatural means? A man of your understanding should surely understand the danger in making assumptions without any testable evidence. My beef was not with the details of your extension of the analogy. It was with:
*You might have changed things around a bit, however. Your extension of the original analogy actually resulted in the investigators *validating* the corollary to ID -- that the tub was originally full. This is what gives the impression that you misunderstood the original analogy in the first place.
Oh, Please.
We don't follow your straw-man portrayal of how science works.Who, exactly, appointed you the sole authoritative spokesperson to represent the entire community of "evolutionary scientists?" You are correct that studying a bath tub would be rather trivial. It's a scenario that provides for easily reproduceable testing. Rather than fixating on the details of the bathtub, however, you were meant to extrapolate the analogy to something that is not easily observed and a set of events that are highly impracticle to reproduce. Are you so devoid of imagination as to make requisite this explanation? This really was fairly obvious and very easy to comprehend. Right over Mr. EvolutionaryScientist®'s head, I guess.
Determining beforehand who will misuse a firearm (or any potentially dangerous technology) is not necessary. There's a saying: "People can't be trusted with guns -- that's why everyone has to have them." Even if you are someone with a propensity to misuse your firearm, you can be held in check if you know that all those around you are also well armed and trained in their use. If you still ignore this and decide to misuse your firearm, you will quickly be gunned down in such surroundings. The bad apples will be outnumbered and outgunned by the good ones. There's a reason whay guns are referred to as "equalizers." Unfortunately, in today's modern, domesticated societies, guns have largely been concentrated into the hands of people with criminal intent -- which furthers the impression that guns are inherently bad. After all *everybody* knows that only bad people have them, right?.
Why do you think you need a name? The source of the information is irrelevant. Why aren't you capable of discussing something on its' own merits? What, you can't entertain an idea that doesn't have some slick BrandName® To back it up? Maybe you have a need to associate unfamiliar ideas with some individual that you can easily demonize, thus permitting you to sleep better after rejecting them? Changing the subject to a demonization of the messenger is a tactic taught in debate classes -- something practiced by those that are more concerned with "winning" an argument than getting to the truth of a matter. Discounting some information out of hand because it came from someone or something that doesn't fall 100% in-line with your personal idealogy is both foolish and dangerous. Psycologist? Please.
The source of the information is irrelevant. Why don't you discuss it on its' own merits, instead of resorting to demonizing the messenger. This is a tactic taught in debate class -- something practiced by those that are more concerned with "winning" an argument than getting to the truth of a matter. Discounting some information out of hand because it came from someone or something that doesn't fall 100% in-line with your personal idealogy is both foolish and dangerous.
BTW, the source of the article was the Anchorage Daily News, not your beloved BBV. Get a grip.
Not yet...
for now...
Yes they can. They can grow to the point where competing with them becomes futile. They can drive the other search engines out of business. Even now, maintenance, data storage, and sufficient processing power for a contstantly updating search that indexes the entire web has such a high bar of entry that many smaller offerings are effectively shut out of the market. This trend toward consolidation is poised only to continue. One day, you may wake up only to discover the other url's you used to type in to look for information are all out of business.
How? Maybe in the sense that the oppressor saves money on ink. The net result is the same. You're catalogued, not a name but a number, dehumanized.
The above post reads like it was genereated by a corporate botnet that auto-posts to blogs and such that contain certain keywords.
Please. Copy-Paste straight from the marketing department. Completely souless tripe. Just give up all your liberty and get it over with, already. *Then* you'll be safe.
I've loved google in the past, but my only fear is that as they evolve into a defacto monopoly, their "do no evil" bit will be tossed. One dominant provider of any service (monopoly) is never a good thing, no matter how good the source started out. Power corrupts, and all that...
Technology is neither moral nor immoral. It is amoral. It is neither good nor evil, but can be used for both and has the power to amplify both. I see both more good and more evil than existed 50 years ago -- primarily due to this amplification effect of technology. Therefore, technology can be neither be construed as a saviour from evil, nor a terrible departure from good. I expect to see more of the extremes in the future as technology improves and allows for their existence.
Apparently you are using a very loose interpreteation of the word own. Even many people that are considered upper-middle-class are stuck in the perrenial debt-cycle -- never owning their own vehicle. You might more accurately say that people below the poverty line are permitted to drive the Bank®'s car in exchange for thier soul as a permanent slave to debt.This is probably more of a detriment than benefit. Try turning off the tube and reading a book.
Vaccination is more than 50 years old. At least back then it was much more voluntary, and didn't contain mercury.
Education? Is that what they claim to be doing in the government schools, nowadays? In reality, a much significantly higher percentage of USians were literate 50 years ago than are today. You're probably right about fewer unskilled laborers, though. What you failed to mention is that now they're all on welfare instead of laboring.
Agreed. Dia is crap, but DBDesigner4 will put Visio to shame in many respects. I'm not as familiar with the other two, but I'm willing to bet that a bit of googling will turn up suitable replacements there, as well.