Just about anything that exhibits characteristics of life as we know it can serve as a heat engine because said thing isn't at the ambient temperature, and that goes for everything from a manure pile to an elephant. However, I suspect that you'd find it a lot easier to force little Johnny down the street to serve as a + to - engine drive than you would a putative "ghost", which, by all accounts, would be a little more difficult to pin down.
I wouldn't be worried too much about the possibility or impossibility of the temperature effects (or effects on nervous systems perceived as temperature effects) as much as I would getting a record of any kind that could serve as decent evidence for some actual manifestation. That's where all this falls apart - just like religion, there is presently no evidence of any kind, at any level, that the stories people believe are true. Doesn't mean we shouldn't look into it, but it does mean that so far, the preponderance of evidence falls neatly into mundane natural categories.
I'd be absolutely fascinated to see evidence of life after death in the "ghostly" sense. I fully expect to see it in the technical sense within a few decades, but that's hardly the same thing; it'll take a lot of hardware and recording equipment, and the whole hook with ghosts is that they are supposed to be able to manage the same feat without any gear at all. Of course, I'd like to meet a leprechaun or a fairy, too. Doesn't mean I'm going to.
Or you could beat the cost of both a mac AND windows system, and go with linux?
Sure, you could beat the cost, but you wouldn't have the same thing, or even close to the same thing. Ubuntu is the best linux out there, and it's not even a pale shadow of what OS X is in terms of functionality, ease of use, and clean design. I run linux and windows both under parallels so that I can, and do, hop back and forth between one OS and another for various reasons. OS X is the environment of choice, hands down, and as a graphics and music guy... well, you know where that's going.
Don't get me wrong, I like osx. I think apple hardware is overpriced, and I don't like vendor lock-in.
Yes, well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion.:-)
No offense taken. That "antiquated" design is quicker and more efficient than any of its competitors, starts (a lot) faster, works across more versions of the operating systems it was designed for, has a smaller executable yet offers more features... I'm actually very proud of it, just as it stands. If the age of the glyphs or some other cosmetic issue stops you from using it, then that's your choice - it is certainly no reflection on the capability of the software to do useful work, efficiently. It is just a reflection on your ability to make rational choices.:-)
Seriously, if you can describe the steps required to create an image out of pieces, then many uses for "undo" evaporate, and many decisions can be deferred until the final "flatten to bitmap." This is especially true if various "layers" represent filters, transformations and the like.
Yeah, I'm right with you, and that's the idea behind the layering system I designed. Also, you never have to "flatten", as there is a composite image available at all times, viewable separately from the layer(s) you are working on, including multiple views and multiple scales, if you like. You can take a clone of the master composite image at any point without flattening the layers, ever. All the geometrics and layer adjust modes are live, as are the color keying modes and a bunch of other stuff. Compositing isn't just a tool, it's actually a mindset for me. I know this isn't something you can use at this point, but I just like talking and speculating about layered image editing. Pretty much hooked on it.
There's no technical reason the click that focuses the window can't also be used to do whatever it would do contextually within the window; press a widget, draw a line, etc. For a "feature", it sure doesn't do anything that makes me happy, that's all I can say about it. You'd think they'd at least put a prefs switch in to let you choose.
It was designed for Windows starting with Windows 3.1. Still works with anything as far back as 98. So it has used Windows OS calls as a historical matter, at least since we ported the core engine from the Amiga in the late 1980's. There are a few calls that are pretty specific, like font glyph rotation, skewing and scaling. The software does use a minimum of them, though, we've always been pretty concentrated on writing as much of our own functionality as possible. I've always wondered if it'd run under wine; but I run RH9 at home myself (as legacy support for a commercial system, can't upgrade), and most modern things (like recent Gimps, in fact) won't compile under my RH9 and the last time I tried to get wine working at all - with anything - it was a complete FUBAR event. So I'm not really qualified to say wine or no wine. I think you might need a current Linux to make all that stuff work. Sure would like to know, though.:-)
Our current development focus is building something for the Mac Leopard that uses our core competence in image manipulation but is built with deep (32-bit) channels and is a Mac-native application from the ground up. We won't be looking at major changes to the Windows stuff until the Mac project bears fruit. But for what it is (an 8-bit/channel image manipulation system) the Windows software is quite strong as is.
In PS, I can select a random sized area, copy it, and hit new, and it will have populated the dimensions of the image I have on the clipboard to the dialogue. Not so with The Gimp.
In the Gimp, select the random sized area, copy it, (ctrl c) and select "edit / paste as new" and you don't even have to open a dialog - there's your image. Don't see what is causing you problems, really.
What can Gimp do that Photoshop can't, OR, what can GIMP do better/faster so I can get more done in a day?
Speaking as an author of WinImages, maybe you should give WinImages a try. Because the answer to both those questions would be quite extensive. Just as a teaser, non-destructive geometric layer modes including scaling, rotation, all manner of other things from skewing to water effects that may be stacked (in layers) over each other for real-time geometric interactions. Many more very useful layer blending options. Takes fewer mouse operations to do any kind of repeated image editing (like removing blemishes.) WinImages is a lot faster to start up, basically instantaneous on any reasonable machine today. It offers random access to multiple layers at once as well as the final, blended image. It can animate, or batch, almost any operation, including the area selections, over time or an image sequence. And play back the result for you in a filmstrip. It runs w/o copy protection or "DRM" of any kind from Windows 98 on up (and under Bootcamp and Parallels on a Mac), and there are no limitations on how many machines, or by how many users, or under what virtualization conditions, it may be used. It might even run under Linux's "wine", but I don't actually know either way. Free to try; and it isn't expensive.:-)
Re:Most important thing
on
GIMP 2.4 Released
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Interesting. Have you tried WinImages (if you're working under Windows)? It addresses all those issues, and many more. The UI is not like Photoshop's or the Gimp's, and is demonstrably more efficient in terms of what gets done per UI interaction count.
Sounds like you're a real layers fan; WinImages has more layering power than anything else out there, hands down. 70+ blend modes, non-destructive geometric edits including scaling and rotation and a lot more.
What's up with that? I'll tell you: A computer is only as good as its software. The OS and its subordinate applications are the critical things, not the hardware. I agree that in an ideal world, Apple would be able to sell you an OS with all the drivers for all the myriad hardware configurations out there, but that's not the case. Instead, Apple wants you to have a standard setup they *know* will work. Personally, I found that enough justification to buy into the hardware. Finally, I *know* my stuff will work. No more hunting for drivers. Etc. Now, if your hardware investment cannot be resold because it now has no value - unlike a Mac, I might add - this is not Apple's fault (though we *can* blame Apple that our Macs have good resale values.) On the other hand, if you bought really good PC hardware, perhaps you can sell it, and move to a Mac. You can get a loaded dual core Mac mini with a couple gigs of ram for about $950 right now; they work great, I have several, working on one right now.
Frankly, as far as I'm concerned, any typical Mac's cost is well worth it to get out from under Windows. I have used Windows since the very beginning, and I still have to (sometimes) for work, and the experience is just awful compared to OS X.
YMMV, especially if your hardware has not retained any value.
Re:Most important thing
on
GIMP 2.4 Released
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Actually, my biggest complaint about the Gimp (v2.2 on the Mac), and the biggest single time-waster, is that it doesn't remember many user settings. For example, I open the program, go to open an image, it's forgotten - again - where I was (in my image directory, where else?) when I closed the program. Time to navigate the filesystem tree... again... I go to scale an image, and it's forgotten I want bicubic, that I want percent, not pixels - and this is inside the very same session. A whole bunch of UI interactions ensue that are entirely unnecessary.
Well, that and the "window isn't active, and so ignores your mouse operation and simply activates, instead" issue, but that's not strictly the Gimp's fault, or at least, that's my impression. Lots of programs have that problem on the Mac.
Well, I look forward to 2.4. Hopefully usability has been looked into.
You said yourself that you would use it to maim another person if given the opportunity.
I didn't say any such thing. I was very specific about the conditions that would have to obtain, and "opportunity" wasn't, and isn't, in any way a factor. I have "opportunities" all the time (I have a CC license.) I manage to restrain myself somehow, though. That's sarcasm, BTW.
But by the same token guns don't protect people, do they?
Of course they do. As do nuclear weapons, for that matter. Just ask all the US soldiers that didn't have to continue fighting after we nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Or any soldier that shot some guy first, who was about to shoot, knife, or otherwise assault them. This is also true when the weapons simply serve as a deterrent - you don't even have to use them if people know you have them and are willing to use them. You'd be able to figure this out if you'd simply stop and think for a moment. Say you are aggravated at someone. This someone is 4 feet tall, skinny as heck, and has just done something awful that makes you feel you have the need, perhaps even the right, to hit them. You willing to hit this little guy, considering he looks like he'd fold in a high wind? Now, same situation, only this time, the someone is seven feet tall, muscles bursting out of every seam, scars on their knuckles, previously broken nose... are you just as willing to them back? Not unless you're stupid, you're not. This is deterrence. Having the weapons, along with the perception that you're willing to use them, serves as a huge deterrent. When you understand this, you'll understand why firing a gun in anger is much rarer than owning one.
Of course that works both ways, you know. A complete buffoon can now easily down a skilled martial artist or anyone else he chooses from across a room without them even knowing what hit them, and with very low risk to himself.
Of course I know; that's one of the key reasons I think that an uninvited, unknown interloper should be shot first and interrogated later. No one should ever enter another person's home without explicit permission as far as I'm concerned. You'd be smart to extend that permission to the local fire department, along with a means for them to let you know it is them, but even that should be your choice, not theirs. My local FD has my door codes, fire alarm code, and a written document describing all of the home's relevant issues from external gasoline storage locations for our generators to the sleeping location of a diabetic.
I presume you're willing to confront such a person and possibly get yourself killed in the process in the name of protecting your plasma TV?
It has less to do with our possessions per se, mostly to do with the safety of the occupants.
Say you have three people dear to you in your home. And the aforementioned plasma TV or goodies of similar enticement to the common worthless scumbag. Someone enters your home without your permission, stealthily, and you become aware of this, and are in a position to do something about it. Now, at this juncture, what reason do you have to think they are there for your plasma? Even if you thought they were, what reason do you have to think they won't kill or injure anyone they encounter? What reason do you have to assume they won't attempt a rape? What if kidnapping your kids is what they have in mind? And here you are, trying to make a decision based on your plasma TV?
And just to be perfectly clear, I don't suggest "confronting" such an interloper; I suggest shooting them, preferably from a perfectly safe blind. It's up to the homeowner to think ahead and arrange for the most effective possible response to unauthorized entry. If you don't take the time, you may pay a very high price. Automated lethal mantraps are usually illegal (perhaps always, I'm only familiar with a few state's laws), which is very unfortunate, but that doesn't rule out designing, evaluating and practicing your lines of sight, methods of notification, low-light systems and so on. Non-lethal mantraps (like suddenly closed off corridors, pools of glue, teflon-lined cone-pits) aren't a bad idea either, if you can dedicate the space to them and your local laws allow same (ask a lawyer.) Likewise, ask a lawyer if you can use lethal force to defend your home. Some states are retarded enough to forbid this, putting your family at risk for the sake of the presumptive health of the interloper.
Is there some set of circumstances that you can imagine where you, presumably someone who knows me, would be able to "throw me a surprise birthday party" in my home without involving authorized members of my household?
A complete solution is almost at hand. Get a Mac with Leopard, and go into "enhanced functionality mode" permanently, without the OS manufacturer screwing with your life.
Except for Apple's iTunes store, of course, which for the most part is as DRM-infested as Vista is.
behaviour isn't a spelling mistake you fuckhead. It's called English, learn it.
Actually, (sic) in and of itself does not necessarily indicate a spelling mistake or other error. It is an abbreviation of Latin (sicut) that means "Intentionally so written", "thus", "so", or "just as that" when quoting someone else. I used it there to be clear that the UK spelling was the intent of the original author, not a change of mine within the quote, since there was a spelling difference between my usage (American English, "behavior") and the other poster's usage.
I do appreciate your concern for my prose, however. Keep those eyes open. Loose standards sink Anonymous Cowards. Or something along those lines.
Yes, you have no right to use violence for any purpose.
This is not a rationale, this is an opinion.
The fact that others may engage in a behaviour(sic) does not make that behaviour(sic) acceptable.
Nor does it make it unacceptable. This is not a rationale either. Every behavior is contextually sensitive; every action; every reaction.
The harm of adding an act of violence to the world
No, doesn't even remotely hold up. Stopping Hitler was an act of violence. Killing germs is an act of violence (and one very close to aborting crimes of violence against one's self by preemptive strikes against an offender who has made thier violent intent known to you.) Killing cockroaches and flies is an act of violence. All of which are well justified.
the stain of having acted such to the actor, far outweighs any perceived benefit that may be realized through the use of violence.
There is no "stain" for legitimate self-defense. As for your presumption that acts of violence outweigh any perceived benefit, I expect you to stop washing your hands, taking antibiotics, walking on grass, eating meat or any product that was harvested by machine without carefully picking off the insect life first, then washing with clean water, gently, to preserve the maximum amount of microbial and viral lifeforms. You may no longer spit, as doing so exposes millions of life forms to a violent death by environmental catastrophe, you may no longer bathe, clean your bedclothes, your home, drive any vehicle... you get the point. You do violence all the time. Terminal violence. You do it so as to enable your ability, and your family's ability, to get on with what you consider to be a normal life.
My position on home invasion is that by so doing, the invader has demonstrated that normal social conventions do not apply; I can presume that just as they violated the bounds of my home and property, they may very well intend to violate the bounds of my family's health and safety. Just as you would wash your hands, knowing that a germ on your hands may take the next step and colonize - and kill - you. Those germs have made their intent known by doing this many times previously. This is your justification for putting them down before they (may) put you down. Action signifies intent. Now, you may not understand this, but I assure you, it is so.
Though I suspect you are not prepared to carry through your implied threat with the request of an address, I will not take the chance that you will soil yourself with an act of violence by giving it to you.
Thank you; you've precisely made my point for me, as I knew you would. It is a very bad thing to even contemplate someone coming to your home with violent intent. This is what underlies my reaction to the actual act.
Further, no threat of mine was implied. All I have advocated here is defending one's home. My point in asking you to post your address is that your security depends upon people not crossing your home's boundaries. By exposing your address on the Internet, you would enlarge the number of people who might cross that boundary enormously, especially here on Slashdot, where social norms are routinely violated with impunity. Once someone comes to your home - regardless of who it is, or why - and violates your boundaries, you are at risk. Your thesis requires you to let them murder you and your family and your pets and burn your home to the ground after taking everything you and yours have worked for to enrich themselves. I find that unacceptable. If you want to visit, simply knock and behave like a gentleman; you'd be at no risk, I assume you. Come stealthily, and you've just earned yourself all the consideration I would give a staphylococcus colony. I'd put you down just because you're a member of the class of beings that often causes trouble, and you're (metaphorically speaking) trying to establish yourself on my hand.
The home invader is the soil here. Putting them down is simply the act of washing.
I see. So, you think it's perfectly OK to invade someone's home without their consent; I have no right to use violence to defend my family, as near as I can tell from your post.
Care to explain your rationale? I'd love to read it, presuming you actually have one and you're not just echoing the politically correct sentiments of others.
A Glock, on the other hand, is designed for a reason.
Um-hmmm. To make money for the manufacturer by creating an object that will be highly desired such that people will pay well for it as compared to what it costs to put it together. From the consumer perspective, to shoot bullets. And going by what said Glock is mostly used for in that regard, that is, shooting bullets, said #1 reason would be target shooting, #2 would be gun collecting, and a very, very distant #3 would be putting a bullet into a living, breathing animal. Sometimes for entirely appropriate reasons, I might add.
For instance, if someone enters my house but chooses not to ring the bell and wait for an invitation to enter by an authorized member of my household, I'd just as soon put a bullet in their kneecap as not. But the fate of their knee isn't in any way a product of technology; if I didn't have a gun, I'd be perfectly content to shatter that same knee with a bat instead; using a "technology" that has literally been around since man lived in caves. Even failing that, as a martial artist, I could simply use my hands, weight and leverage and destroy their knee that way. Each of these technologies requires that I come closer and closer to my target, and enhances my risk in the order presented. Which leads me to ask: Why should I suffer such risk enhancement for the sake of a home invader, or the offended sensibilities of people who are not in any way authorized members of my household?
The problem here is the failure of the interloper to observe the social boundaries of "this is not your house", and, if you like, that I have grown to consider unauthorized intrusions into my home to be every bit as unacceptable as an actual physical assault. Not that a Glock can put a bullet into a knee. If you want to solve the actual problem, either convince me it's OK for someone to enter my home without my permission, or convince all members of society not to enter my (anyone's) home without permission. This is a social problem, a human problem, a problem of boundaries, ownership, privacy and liberty. The Glock is irrelevant.
It isn't that technology breeds crime; it is that technology is a form of human enhancement, and some humans are criminals. However, technology also enhances law enforcement, brings new ethical and moral issues to the table for society (or the ruling political junta) to rule on, and empowers people further and further down the economic scale as technology itself becomes inexpensive.
I don't think we ought to be "criminalizing" technology as a whole. We simply need to keep considering, and re-considering, the ethical and moral issues of the day in the light of what our current society can tolerate without infringing on the liberties of individuals and the security of the group.
If we have a fault, it is an inability to change quickly when we see social regulation - like the drug war, or the current pogrom against sexuality - isn't working. That's a political problem, and one we (speaking as a US citizen) have been roundly unable to address.
Shakespeare's character has a quote from the correct page of the instruction manual for this kind of lawyerly behavior: "First thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."
Slashdot Mirror
Just about anything that exhibits characteristics of life as we know it can serve as a heat engine because said thing isn't at the ambient temperature, and that goes for everything from a manure pile to an elephant. However, I suspect that you'd find it a lot easier to force little Johnny down the street to serve as a + to - engine drive than you would a putative "ghost", which, by all accounts, would be a little more difficult to pin down.
I wouldn't be worried too much about the possibility or impossibility of the temperature effects (or effects on nervous systems perceived as temperature effects) as much as I would getting a record of any kind that could serve as decent evidence for some actual manifestation. That's where all this falls apart - just like religion, there is presently no evidence of any kind, at any level, that the stories people believe are true. Doesn't mean we shouldn't look into it, but it does mean that so far, the preponderance of evidence falls neatly into mundane natural categories.
I'd be absolutely fascinated to see evidence of life after death in the "ghostly" sense. I fully expect to see it in the technical sense within a few decades, but that's hardly the same thing; it'll take a lot of hardware and recording equipment, and the whole hook with ghosts is that they are supposed to be able to manage the same feat without any gear at all. Of course, I'd like to meet a leprechaun or a fairy, too. Doesn't mean I'm going to.
Sure, you could beat the cost, but you wouldn't have the same thing, or even close to the same thing. Ubuntu is the best linux out there, and it's not even a pale shadow of what OS X is in terms of functionality, ease of use, and clean design. I run linux and windows both under parallels so that I can, and do, hop back and forth between one OS and another for various reasons. OS X is the environment of choice, hands down, and as a graphics and music guy... well, you know where that's going.
Yes, well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion. :-)
No offense taken. That "antiquated" design is quicker and more efficient than any of its competitors, starts (a lot) faster, works across more versions of the operating systems it was designed for, has a smaller executable yet offers more features... I'm actually very proud of it, just as it stands. If the age of the glyphs or some other cosmetic issue stops you from using it, then that's your choice - it is certainly no reflection on the capability of the software to do useful work, efficiently. It is just a reflection on your ability to make rational choices. :-)
Yeah, I'm right with you, and that's the idea behind the layering system I designed. Also, you never have to "flatten", as there is a composite image available at all times, viewable separately from the layer(s) you are working on, including multiple views and multiple scales, if you like. You can take a clone of the master composite image at any point without flattening the layers, ever. All the geometrics and layer adjust modes are live, as are the color keying modes and a bunch of other stuff. Compositing isn't just a tool, it's actually a mindset for me. I know this isn't something you can use at this point, but I just like talking and speculating about layered image editing. Pretty much hooked on it.
There's no technical reason the click that focuses the window can't also be used to do whatever it would do contextually within the window; press a widget, draw a line, etc. For a "feature", it sure doesn't do anything that makes me happy, that's all I can say about it. You'd think they'd at least put a prefs switch in to let you choose.
It was designed for Windows starting with Windows 3.1. Still works with anything as far back as 98. So it has used Windows OS calls as a historical matter, at least since we ported the core engine from the Amiga in the late 1980's. There are a few calls that are pretty specific, like font glyph rotation, skewing and scaling. The software does use a minimum of them, though, we've always been pretty concentrated on writing as much of our own functionality as possible. I've always wondered if it'd run under wine; but I run RH9 at home myself (as legacy support for a commercial system, can't upgrade), and most modern things (like recent Gimps, in fact) won't compile under my RH9 and the last time I tried to get wine working at all - with anything - it was a complete FUBAR event. So I'm not really qualified to say wine or no wine. I think you might need a current Linux to make all that stuff work. Sure would like to know, though. :-)
Our current development focus is building something for the Mac Leopard that uses our core competence in image manipulation but is built with deep (32-bit) channels and is a Mac-native application from the ground up. We won't be looking at major changes to the Windows stuff until the Mac project bears fruit. But for what it is (an 8-bit/channel image manipulation system) the Windows software is quite strong as is.
We just need a Mac GUI maven right now. Sigh.
In the Gimp, select the random sized area, copy it, (ctrl c) and select "edit / paste as new" and you don't even have to open a dialog - there's your image. Don't see what is causing you problems, really.
Speaking of Mac version Gimp 2.2:
These are really aggravating on the one hand, and easily fixed on the other. They're also painfully obvious the first time you run into them.
Pot... Kettle... Mr 32 whole minutes late dude.
Speaking as an author of WinImages, maybe you should give WinImages a try. Because the answer to both those questions would be quite extensive. Just as a teaser, non-destructive geometric layer modes including scaling, rotation, all manner of other things from skewing to water effects that may be stacked (in layers) over each other for real-time geometric interactions. Many more very useful layer blending options. Takes fewer mouse operations to do any kind of repeated image editing (like removing blemishes.) WinImages is a lot faster to start up, basically instantaneous on any reasonable machine today. It offers random access to multiple layers at once as well as the final, blended image. It can animate, or batch, almost any operation, including the area selections, over time or an image sequence. And play back the result for you in a filmstrip. It runs w/o copy protection or "DRM" of any kind from Windows 98 on up (and under Bootcamp and Parallels on a Mac), and there are no limitations on how many machines, or by how many users, or under what virtualization conditions, it may be used. It might even run under Linux's "wine", but I don't actually know either way. Free to try; and it isn't expensive. :-)
Interesting. Have you tried WinImages (if you're working under Windows)? It addresses all those issues, and many more. The UI is not like Photoshop's or the Gimp's, and is demonstrably more efficient in terms of what gets done per UI interaction count.
Sounds like you're a real layers fan; WinImages has more layering power than anything else out there, hands down. 70+ blend modes, non-destructive geometric edits including scaling and rotation and a lot more.
I know this because I wrote a lot of it. ;-)
What's up with that? I'll tell you: A computer is only as good as its software. The OS and its subordinate applications are the critical things, not the hardware. I agree that in an ideal world, Apple would be able to sell you an OS with all the drivers for all the myriad hardware configurations out there, but that's not the case. Instead, Apple wants you to have a standard setup they *know* will work. Personally, I found that enough justification to buy into the hardware. Finally, I *know* my stuff will work. No more hunting for drivers. Etc. Now, if your hardware investment cannot be resold because it now has no value - unlike a Mac, I might add - this is not Apple's fault (though we *can* blame Apple that our Macs have good resale values.) On the other hand, if you bought really good PC hardware, perhaps you can sell it, and move to a Mac. You can get a loaded dual core Mac mini with a couple gigs of ram for about $950 right now; they work great, I have several, working on one right now.
Frankly, as far as I'm concerned, any typical Mac's cost is well worth it to get out from under Windows. I have used Windows since the very beginning, and I still have to (sometimes) for work, and the experience is just awful compared to OS X.
YMMV, especially if your hardware has not retained any value.
Actually, my biggest complaint about the Gimp (v2.2 on the Mac), and the biggest single time-waster, is that it doesn't remember many user settings. For example, I open the program, go to open an image, it's forgotten - again - where I was (in my image directory, where else?) when I closed the program. Time to navigate the filesystem tree... again... I go to scale an image, and it's forgotten I want bicubic, that I want percent, not pixels - and this is inside the very same session. A whole bunch of UI interactions ensue that are entirely unnecessary.
Well, that and the "window isn't active, and so ignores your mouse operation and simply activates, instead" issue, but that's not strictly the Gimp's fault, or at least, that's my impression. Lots of programs have that problem on the Mac.
Well, I look forward to 2.4. Hopefully usability has been looked into.
Yes, that's quite clear. Look up "proctologist" in your local phone book. They specialize in helping people like you out.
I didn't say any such thing. I was very specific about the conditions that would have to obtain, and "opportunity" wasn't, and isn't, in any way a factor. I have "opportunities" all the time (I have a CC license.) I manage to restrain myself somehow, though. That's sarcasm, BTW.
Of course they do. As do nuclear weapons, for that matter. Just ask all the US soldiers that didn't have to continue fighting after we nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Or any soldier that shot some guy first, who was about to shoot, knife, or otherwise assault them. This is also true when the weapons simply serve as a deterrent - you don't even have to use them if people know you have them and are willing to use them. You'd be able to figure this out if you'd simply stop and think for a moment. Say you are aggravated at someone. This someone is 4 feet tall, skinny as heck, and has just done something awful that makes you feel you have the need, perhaps even the right, to hit them. You willing to hit this little guy, considering he looks like he'd fold in a high wind? Now, same situation, only this time, the someone is seven feet tall, muscles bursting out of every seam, scars on their knuckles, previously broken nose... are you just as willing to them back? Not unless you're stupid, you're not. This is deterrence. Having the weapons, along with the perception that you're willing to use them, serves as a huge deterrent. When you understand this, you'll understand why firing a gun in anger is much rarer than owning one.
Of course I know; that's one of the key reasons I think that an uninvited, unknown interloper should be shot first and interrogated later. No one should ever enter another person's home without explicit permission as far as I'm concerned. You'd be smart to extend that permission to the local fire department, along with a means for them to let you know it is them, but even that should be your choice, not theirs. My local FD has my door codes, fire alarm code, and a written document describing all of the home's relevant issues from external gasoline storage locations for our generators to the sleeping location of a diabetic.
It has less to do with our possessions per se, mostly to do with the safety of the occupants.
Say you have three people dear to you in your home. And the aforementioned plasma TV or goodies of similar enticement to the common worthless scumbag. Someone enters your home without your permission, stealthily, and you become aware of this, and are in a position to do something about it. Now, at this juncture, what reason do you have to think they are there for your plasma? Even if you thought they were, what reason do you have to think they won't kill or injure anyone they encounter? What reason do you have to assume they won't attempt a rape? What if kidnapping your kids is what they have in mind? And here you are, trying to make a decision based on your plasma TV?
And just to be perfectly clear, I don't suggest "confronting" such an interloper; I suggest shooting them, preferably from a perfectly safe blind. It's up to the homeowner to think ahead and arrange for the most effective possible response to unauthorized entry. If you don't take the time, you may pay a very high price. Automated lethal mantraps are usually illegal (perhaps always, I'm only familiar with a few state's laws), which is very unfortunate, but that doesn't rule out designing, evaluating and practicing your lines of sight, methods of notification, low-light systems and so on. Non-lethal mantraps (like suddenly closed off corridors, pools of glue, teflon-lined cone-pits) aren't a bad idea either, if you can dedicate the space to them and your local laws allow same (ask a lawyer.) Likewise, ask a lawyer if you can use lethal force to defend your home. Some states are retarded enough to forbid this, putting your family at risk for the sake of the presumptive health of the interloper.
Is there some set of circumstances that you can imagine where you, presumably someone who knows me, would be able to "throw me a surprise birthday party" in my home without involving authorized members of my household?
A complete solution is almost at hand. Get a Mac with Leopard, and go into "enhanced functionality mode" permanently, without the OS manufacturer screwing with your life.
Except for Apple's iTunes store, of course, which for the most part is as DRM-infested as Vista is.
Actually, (sic) in and of itself does not necessarily indicate a spelling mistake or other error. It is an abbreviation of Latin (sicut) that means "Intentionally so written", "thus", "so", or "just as that" when quoting someone else. I used it there to be clear that the UK spelling was the intent of the original author, not a change of mine within the quote, since there was a spelling difference between my usage (American English, "behavior") and the other poster's usage.
I do appreciate your concern for my prose, however. Keep those eyes open. Loose standards sink Anonymous Cowards. Or something along those lines.
This is not a rationale, this is an opinion.
Nor does it make it unacceptable. This is not a rationale either. Every behavior is contextually sensitive; every action; every reaction.
No, doesn't even remotely hold up. Stopping Hitler was an act of violence. Killing germs is an act of violence (and one very close to aborting crimes of violence against one's self by preemptive strikes against an offender who has made thier violent intent known to you.) Killing cockroaches and flies is an act of violence. All of which are well justified.
There is no "stain" for legitimate self-defense. As for your presumption that acts of violence outweigh any perceived benefit, I expect you to stop washing your hands, taking antibiotics, walking on grass, eating meat or any product that was harvested by machine without carefully picking off the insect life first, then washing with clean water, gently, to preserve the maximum amount of microbial and viral lifeforms. You may no longer spit, as doing so exposes millions of life forms to a violent death by environmental catastrophe, you may no longer bathe, clean your bedclothes, your home, drive any vehicle... you get the point. You do violence all the time. Terminal violence. You do it so as to enable your ability, and your family's ability, to get on with what you consider to be a normal life.
My position on home invasion is that by so doing, the invader has demonstrated that normal social conventions do not apply; I can presume that just as they violated the bounds of my home and property, they may very well intend to violate the bounds of my family's health and safety. Just as you would wash your hands, knowing that a germ on your hands may take the next step and colonize - and kill - you. Those germs have made their intent known by doing this many times previously. This is your justification for putting them down before they (may) put you down. Action signifies intent. Now, you may not understand this, but I assure you, it is so.
Thank you; you've precisely made my point for me, as I knew you would. It is a very bad thing to even contemplate someone coming to your home with violent intent. This is what underlies my reaction to the actual act.
Further, no threat of mine was implied. All I have advocated here is defending one's home. My point in asking you to post your address is that your security depends upon people not crossing your home's boundaries. By exposing your address on the Internet, you would enlarge the number of people who might cross that boundary enormously, especially here on Slashdot, where social norms are routinely violated with impunity. Once someone comes to your home - regardless of who it is, or why - and violates your boundaries, you are at risk. Your thesis requires you to let them murder you and your family and your pets and burn your home to the ground after taking everything you and yours have worked for to enrich themselves. I find that unacceptable. If you want to visit, simply knock and behave like a gentleman; you'd be at no risk, I assume you. Come stealthily, and you've just earned yourself all the consideration I would give a staphylococcus colony. I'd put you down just because you're a member of the class of beings that often causes trouble, and you're (metaphorically speaking) trying to establish yourself on my hand.
The home invader is the soil here. Putting them down is simply the act of washing.
I see. So, you think it's perfectly OK to invade someone's home without their consent; I have no right to use violence to defend my family, as near as I can tell from your post.
Care to explain your rationale? I'd love to read it, presuming you actually have one and you're not just echoing the politically correct sentiments of others.
Go ahead, let fly. Also, what's your address?
Um-hmmm. To make money for the manufacturer by creating an object that will be highly desired such that people will pay well for it as compared to what it costs to put it together. From the consumer perspective, to shoot bullets. And going by what said Glock is mostly used for in that regard, that is, shooting bullets, said #1 reason would be target shooting, #2 would be gun collecting, and a very, very distant #3 would be putting a bullet into a living, breathing animal. Sometimes for entirely appropriate reasons, I might add.
For instance, if someone enters my house but chooses not to ring the bell and wait for an invitation to enter by an authorized member of my household, I'd just as soon put a bullet in their kneecap as not. But the fate of their knee isn't in any way a product of technology; if I didn't have a gun, I'd be perfectly content to shatter that same knee with a bat instead; using a "technology" that has literally been around since man lived in caves. Even failing that, as a martial artist, I could simply use my hands, weight and leverage and destroy their knee that way. Each of these technologies requires that I come closer and closer to my target, and enhances my risk in the order presented. Which leads me to ask: Why should I suffer such risk enhancement for the sake of a home invader, or the offended sensibilities of people who are not in any way authorized members of my household?
The problem here is the failure of the interloper to observe the social boundaries of "this is not your house", and, if you like, that I have grown to consider unauthorized intrusions into my home to be every bit as unacceptable as an actual physical assault. Not that a Glock can put a bullet into a knee. If you want to solve the actual problem, either convince me it's OK for someone to enter my home without my permission, or convince all members of society not to enter my (anyone's) home without permission. This is a social problem, a human problem, a problem of boundaries, ownership, privacy and liberty. The Glock is irrelevant.
It isn't that technology breeds crime; it is that technology is a form of human enhancement, and some humans are criminals. However, technology also enhances law enforcement, brings new ethical and moral issues to the table for society (or the ruling political junta) to rule on, and empowers people further and further down the economic scale as technology itself becomes inexpensive.
I don't think we ought to be "criminalizing" technology as a whole. We simply need to keep considering, and re-considering, the ethical and moral issues of the day in the light of what our current society can tolerate without infringing on the liberties of individuals and the security of the group.
If we have a fault, it is an inability to change quickly when we see social regulation - like the drug war, or the current pogrom against sexuality - isn't working. That's a political problem, and one we (speaking as a US citizen) have been roundly unable to address.
Read again, this time for content. I said it was what Shakepeare's CHARACTER said. It was a direct quote. The context was mine.
Shakespeare's character has a quote from the correct page of the instruction manual for this kind of lawyerly behavior: "First thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."