They just asked DR-DOS for its version. If the call failed, it wa MS-DOS; if the call succeeded, they crashed.
What was even more special and embarrassing about this was that there was just one encrypted slab of code in that version of MS-Windows - the DR-DOS detector. Pretty hard to argue that this was accidental, no?
A critter is more than genes. There are also mechanisms to manipulate those genes, the most obvious ones being the transcription checking and stuff, and a whole pile of other mechanism which arrives along with the nice neat little package of DNA.
You are not necessarily bringing the adaptation about through mutation. You are simply increasing the rate at which chemical change takes place, regardless of the mechanism.
Four elements is not Biblical, it's druidism (and in the Orient, it's five elements anyway). If you want to talk about mythology, let's talk about pangenes, spontaneous generation, ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny and teleomers.
How did the bacteria (of the same species) get different genomes in the first place, if not for persistent mutations?
Call it a design feature, it makes more sense that they bedesigned to cope with a range of environments than that they consistently stumble across solutions.
If your theory that mutations are overwhelmingly bad was true, wouldn't they all have their original divinely-specified genome?
No. If they had their original genome, that would be evidence for no fall, no decay.
Why was the capability to metabolize man-made chemicals hanging around at all? Wouldn't it have degraded through genetic drift in the billions of previous generations?
Probably for exactly the same reason that most mechanics have one or two spanners which they've never used. Yes, it almost certainly has degraded from the original.It can be experimentally demonstrated that increasing the mutation rate also increases the adaptation rate to the new environment. Well, duh? Increasing the temperature (within limits) increases the speed of practically any chemical reaction.
It can also be demonstrated that the adapted bacteria have new genetic material, which could only have arisen from mutations.
Why could it have only arisen from mutations? Why could there be no provision for adaptation built into the genetic machinery? Remember the late, unlamented concept of "junk DNA"?
From these and other observations we can conclude that mutation is at least one important factor in adaptation.
Oh, very funny. Please fill in the blank:
Assume that mutation dunnit.
???
Declare mutation the proven agent and very important.
As I said, selection is not a magic wand. If it was, it would be teleological in effect and all claims to Materialism and Atheism would vanish with its discovery.
Clearly there is some correction mechanism that compensates for destructive mutations.
Yup, most certainly is. Many of them in fact.
Two things worth noting about them are that they're not perfect, and that they correct all mutations - good, bad or indifferent.
How else would you account for bacteria evolving to man-made environments or developing antibiotic resistance?
Natural selection alone. Some bacteria already had this capability, and survived exposure to the "alien" environment.
If you slowly reintroduced the population to more natural conditions, they would gradually revert until they were essentially as before - unless some necessary survival attribute was selected out completely. Darwin Finches have been observed to do exactly the same thing. No new information, just reapportioning existing codings at need. Bacteria in particular use a technique called conjugation to "pre-adapt" newcomers to their community.
Pie in the sky when you die is conditional on good behaviour here on Earth. A deist who is both stupid and greedy will want that pie and will practice altrustic behaviour in order to obtain it. In other words, greed actually leads to charity.
I say stupid and greedy because doing the charitable deeds is not the point. That would only be delayed gratification, a demonstration of strong will rather than good character.
The point is to become the kind of person who naturally does charitable deeds, for a 100% altruistic 100% of the time society is the best of all possible worlds. In Christian theology, you will be rewarded not for the sheer scope of your deeds, but for what you did from the heart with what you had. You go to Heaven by being suitable for Heaven rather than by racking up brownie points. In that case, good character leads to charity.
Since there is no totting up at the end of the day, for an Atheist, there are no consequences beyond the immediate, or as Louis XV was said to have so elegantly put it, "apres moi, le deluge". Charity does make sense in the overall situation, but it's not what individuals actually choose in practice if left to themselves.
The distiniction is kind of blurred in Western society, because we're raised in a more-or-less Christian milieu. Our basic working assumptions descend from Protestantism with a dash of random Deism.
...that there are far more destructive mutations than anything which can possibly be interpreted as constructive, and they accumulate almost as readily. Natural selection is no magic wand.
Since we are accumulating malfunctions far faster than useful functions (if indeed we are accumulating useful functions), we're all eventually doomed. This is a mechanism to destroy, not to produce.
This is indeed descent, but not after the fashion imagined by Erasmus Darwin or his grandson.
...if improvements to reproduction were the goal, we'd all be lemmings - or E. Coli.
Mutagenic influences don't just move blocks, they damage and randomise them.
The selection feedback is the shop assistant removing the damaged blocks and replacing them with fresh ones (and presumably calling a glazier about the window).
In Evolution (capital E for molecules-to-man) there is no observer, only a blind man with no feeling in his hands.
Genetic evolution requires a complex computer, and rules. Another way of saying "rules" is "design".
How did the necessary preconditions get there? You can't just assume them without explanation.
There are many more destructive mutations than beneficial. Selection is not a magic wand, it is a gradual thing - remember that there is no observer. It seems obvious (but there is also much research and proof) that minor destructive changes will accumulate faster than constructive, simply by weight of numbers. So we would expect to see species growing weaker and becoming extinct rather than growing stronger and branching out in various successful directions - and we do.
Prediction says that overall there will be decay, not progress. Observation backs this up. Where do we find a live dragonfly with a hundred-and-ten centimeter wingspan to match the vigour of the fossils? We don't. Evolution is doing exactly what actual science (rather than fairy tales for Atheists) says it should be doing: destroying us. There is no natural (Materialist) mechanism for improving us.
...in that they are both downward bound. Natural selection can weed out the losers, and mutation can produce more losers, by degrees or in lumps, but there's no mechanism for producing winners.
None.
Destructive mutations accrue much faster than anything which could be considered helpful overall. The inevitable result is ever-increasing basic illness and incapacity, which will eventually overcome hygeine advances and even miracle drugs and lead to extinction for all, not to new and fitter species.
That's science - or more specifically, that's the path which observation points us down, as opposed to the glories of esoteric thought experiments labelled "science".
Altruism is correlated with reproduction? WTF? By Darwinian standards, reproduction is the ultimate selfish act
True, but unless their religion is Darwinism, a selfish person is going to be avoiding the personal expense, risk and inconvenience of reproduction. Why would you want to adhere to Darwinian standards? The pure Atheist's motto is "apres moi, le deluge".
And the rest of your arguments fall apart along similar lines.
You've forgotten to account for the DNA itself, and the composition of the supporting proteins, to say nothing of the gazillion or so chunks of supporting machinery and other stuff which is imported wholesale along with the DNA.
And then he presumed that the whole thing had to just appear randomly at once.
That's actually more reasonable in statistical terms. Meet Dr Periannan Senepathy, respected biologist with many important papers to his name.
Your Pentium IV analogy is hilarious!
Who took parts of the primordial cell and "rearranged them and added new stuff"? Time and chance? Or researchers aided i their planning by powerful computers and reams of physics?
Who dictated the x86 lineage (I favour MIPS myself)? Breeding? Or policy decisions by managers?
Who sets policy for a cell?
humans wouldn't have been intelligently created with an appendix or tonsils
Well, I must say that you walked right into this one! (-:
Go and read any modern medical text on the subect to discover why doctors are becoming increasingly reluctant to excise such organs at a whim. What you'll find is that the scorn heaped on them was a product of our collective ignorance, coupled with the evolutionary assumption that such features would exist. Now we as a race know better, but evidently you've got some catching up to do. (-:
Damn, I replied to an AC again.
Implicit parallelism is indeed powerful
on
Happy Darwin Day!
·
· Score: 1
But I don't see how massively amplifying the negative factors as well as the positive in any way helps your case.
The fossil evidence is indeed "massively clear"
on
Happy Darwin Day!
·
· Score: 1
No transitionals, ever-increasing range and overlap for our index fossils, a single massive explosion in complexity over a very narrow range, ecologically grouped fossils, fossils of incredibly delicate creatures, "boneyards" of fossils, fossils with soft parts intact or only partially fossilised, total stasis of form in everything from mosquitos to sharks, and full-blown complex critters (e.g. trilobite) right at the bottom of the stack.
From this, it is obvious that either there has been no evolution, or our dating systems are totally cocked up, or both.
The logical consequence of this is that Darwinian theory is not so much wrong as irrelevant.
Irrelevant or not, it's still wrong. Darwin imagined each of the billions of cells of which we consist to be - as his buddy Earnst Haeckel put it - "a simple little lump of albuminous carbon". In that light, which to us today looks breathtakingly insane, molecules-to-man evolution looked like a reasonable proposition. Given what we now know, it's far beyond merely inadequate for the task. But who ever said that all religions were rational?
That's appropriate in its own way...
on
Happy Darwin Day!
·
· Score: 1
...since a Church of Humanism has, well... what kind of furniture?
A whacking great mirror across the front? (-:
And the hymns?
"All things bright and beautiful;
all creatures great and small... all things wise and wonderful; random numbers made them all!"
I have no clue what you are trying to refer to with "meaningful sidebands"
When you write about something, there is lots that you can't put into words, but you can do stuff that a photo can't, for example, you can describe smells, sounds, the temperature, wind, your own feelings, all manner of stuff that won't fit through the lens, and some of which might drastically change a listener's perception of the scene. OTOH, the sensor behind the lens captures an enormous amount of detail which words could never adequately convey, even though you published an encyclopaedia describing just one scene. Video would also capture sound and motion, but at a lower resolution. Each method loses some richness somewhere, and that can be important.
99.9% of the time, replacing that heat tile with something random would kill the shuttle. 0.1% of the time (probably less, but the exact probability is relatively unimportant) we get something that works - is useful, to use your terminology. 0.1% of those work *better* than the original. Are we agreed that these are all possible? Because that is exactly why randomness (increased entropy) is essential.
Here is where those sidebands come into play, and we run into several critical features of the situation which completely invalidate your approach. Interestingly enough, natural selection is one of the key problems in your scenario.
The second stage is natural selection; in this stage, we look at the designs and reproduce the most successful ones.
Problem number one: suppose that the Shuttle started out with a high-wing design, but that turbulence rendered it much less practical than the present configuration. So sooner or later we get a randomly mutated Shuttle in which one of the wings is lower - and it promptly destabilises on re-entry and scatters itself all over the landscape. Then one fine aeon we get another Shuttle with both wings a little lower - but because the main spar has to run through the body instead of across it, the SSME's don't work so well any more, so it never hits orbit. It seems obvious that massive changes are going to be disruptive enough to prevent an advancement in wing placement by large steps. This is opaque to the probability theory you're using.
Problem number two: we get a Shuttle with one wing only a centimeter lower than the other. We are hopeful that our candidate is the first in a long line leading to low-winged Shuttles. We watch and wait expectantly, but since the difference in wings conveys no immediate advantage, our Shuttle is not selected for an the low-wing gene is eventually diluted to extinction by the many, many copies of the high-wing gene. This is also opaque to the probability theory you're using.
Problem number three: Shuttles take resources to build. You get a finite number of Shuttles over a finite span of time to experiment with. The probability theory so far deployed is too simplistic to incorporate such limitations, but they have decisive effect on the possible outcomes.
You may well argue that there are a lot of microbes with very short generation times, and there are, but it's still a very long way short of enough candidates to explain the supposed derivatives we now see - and of course the argument disintegrates completely when faced with whales, turtles or macaw, all of which have quite long generational times.
There are many more problems, but it's a busy day today.
Thus, over time our shuttle would become a veritable brick spacehouse, nearly impervious to heat.
Not to mention incapable of making orbit. Oh, well...
Lots of trials? Lots of time? Absolutely. But the mechanism works.
Even if I were to cede you that in its entirety, which I don't, the mechanism han't got anything like the traction to explain what we observe.
Problem number four: not all of the unhelpful modifications will have
...other than How To Become Insanely Rich Through Dumpster Diving?
Maybe How To Justify Everything You Do, Hypocritical Or Not. Windows still occasionally bluescreens when you plug a new device in, years after this faux pas, in which Trey explains "that must be why it hasn't been released yet". Billions in cash, but still hasn't ironed out the bugs == "we don't really care about the bugs". Quality is not Job #1, getting the money is.
Sometimes a program can be a lot more efficient if it wasn't hobbled by starting with the only available native approach to doing things. Portability generally equals abstraction, and that abstraction can be valuable. The incredible number of applications badly nobbled by being jammed into Microsoft's bizarre idea of an MDI is a long-standing example.
And of course the time-consuming part goes away when you factor in the pain in tracking API changes and chasing down weird bugs when you tightly integrate, problems whiach are a lot more transparent with a more generalised set of underpinnings. This is not helped by the lack of alternate debugging platforms, on which you can quickly find out whether the problem lies within your code or the system you're writing to, not to mention flushing out subtler bugs by being able to change fundamental things like endian-ness and word size.
Then when the platform you tightly integrated with gets obsoleted, or your major client(s) change platforms, or the API you integrated with suddenly becomes expensive (as happened with MS-Office after they undermined their visible competition) you're up sheeite creek in a barbed-wire canoe, sans paddle.
...but they don't have that pause at the beginning while a 20MB+ VM spins up, they don't have Microsoft shipping mutant versions of the standard, and they're a lot more fun to write.
I loaned my spare Linux workstation to my sister-in-law, who at the time bemoaned the absence of PhotoShop.
Now she still misses the odd PS feature but also sorely misses GIMP features when on PS, the convenience of Konqueror and Firefox when stuck with MSIE and Windows Explorer, and really hates the constant crashing (I swapped her CD burner for a DVD burner yesterday and her machine had been up for 183 days since the last power failure - she never saves, with obvious consequences after five hours' typing up of a document on one of her kids' school's computers, I've seen an image left open on her machine for more than a week while she tries various stuff on it; her oldest son built a Klaymen figurine over the reset button out of plasticene, where it's been sitting for more than a month and she didn't notice). I'll update that machine soon so she can have GIMP 2.2, which is all-over much nicer than the 2.0 she's using.
Slashdot Mirror
They just asked DR-DOS for its version. If the call failed, it wa MS-DOS; if the call succeeded, they crashed.
What was even more special and embarrassing about this was that there was just one encrypted slab of code in that version of MS-Windows - the DR-DOS detector. Pretty hard to argue that this was accidental, no?
A critter is more than genes. There are also mechanisms to manipulate those genes, the most obvious ones being the transcription checking and stuff, and a whole pile of other mechanism which arrives along with the nice neat little package of DNA.
You are not necessarily bringing the adaptation about through mutation. You are simply increasing the rate at which chemical change takes place, regardless of the mechanism.
Four elements is not Biblical, it's druidism (and in the Orient, it's five elements anyway). If you want to talk about mythology, let's talk about pangenes, spontaneous generation, ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny and teleomers.
As I said, selection is not a magic wand. If it was, it would be teleological in effect and all claims to Materialism and Atheism would vanish with its discovery.Yup, most certainly is. Many of them in fact.
Two things worth noting about them are that they're not perfect, and that they correct all mutations - good, bad or indifferent.Natural selection alone. Some bacteria already had this capability, and survived exposure to the "alien" environment.
If you slowly reintroduced the population to more natural conditions, they would gradually revert until they were essentially as before - unless some necessary survival attribute was selected out completely. Darwin Finches have been observed to do exactly the same thing. No new information, just reapportioning existing codings at need. Bacteria in particular use a technique called conjugation to "pre-adapt" newcomers to their community.
...is almost as terrible as the sin of heresy. (-:
"Burn him at the ¦"
Pie in the sky when you die is conditional on good behaviour here on Earth. A deist who is both stupid and greedy will want that pie and will practice altrustic behaviour in order to obtain it. In other words, greed actually leads to charity.
I say stupid and greedy because doing the charitable deeds is not the point. That would only be delayed gratification, a demonstration of strong will rather than good character.
The point is to become the kind of person who naturally does charitable deeds, for a 100% altruistic 100% of the time society is the best of all possible worlds. In Christian theology, you will be rewarded not for the sheer scope of your deeds, but for what you did from the heart with what you had. You go to Heaven by being suitable for Heaven rather than by racking up brownie points. In that case, good character leads to charity.
Since there is no totting up at the end of the day, for an Atheist, there are no consequences beyond the immediate, or as Louis XV was said to have so elegantly put it, "apres moi, le deluge". Charity does make sense in the overall situation, but it's not what individuals actually choose in practice if left to themselves.
The distiniction is kind of blurred in Western society, because we're raised in a more-or-less Christian milieu. Our basic working assumptions descend from Protestantism with a dash of random Deism.
...that there are far more destructive mutations than anything which can possibly be interpreted as constructive, and they accumulate almost as readily. Natural selection is no magic wand.
Since we are accumulating malfunctions far faster than useful functions (if indeed we are accumulating useful functions), we're all eventually doomed. This is a mechanism to destroy, not to produce.
This is indeed descent, but not after the fashion imagined by Erasmus Darwin or his grandson.
...if improvements to reproduction were the goal, we'd all be lemmings - or E. Coli.
Mutagenic influences don't just move blocks, they damage and randomise them.
The selection feedback is the shop assistant removing the damaged blocks and replacing them with fresh ones (and presumably calling a glazier about the window).
In Evolution (capital E for molecules-to-man) there is no observer, only a blind man with no feeling in his hands.
Genetic evolution requires a complex computer, and rules. Another way of saying "rules" is "design".
How did the necessary preconditions get there? You can't just assume them without explanation.
There are many more destructive mutations than beneficial. Selection is not a magic wand, it is a gradual thing - remember that there is no observer. It seems obvious (but there is also much research and proof) that minor destructive changes will accumulate faster than constructive, simply by weight of numbers. So we would expect to see species growing weaker and becoming extinct rather than growing stronger and branching out in various successful directions - and we do.
Prediction says that overall there will be decay, not progress. Observation backs this up. Where do we find a live dragonfly with a hundred-and-ten centimeter wingspan to match the vigour of the fossils? We don't. Evolution is doing exactly what actual science (rather than fairy tales for Atheists) says it should be doing: destroying us. There is no natural (Materialist) mechanism for improving us.
...in that they are both downward bound. Natural selection can weed out the losers, and mutation can produce more losers, by degrees or in lumps, but there's no mechanism for producing winners.
None.
Destructive mutations accrue much faster than anything which could be considered helpful overall. The inevitable result is ever-increasing basic illness and incapacity, which will eventually overcome hygeine advances and even miracle drugs and lead to extinction for all, not to new and fitter species.
That's science - or more specifically, that's the path which observation points us down, as opposed to the glories of esoteric thought experiments labelled "science".
And the rest of your arguments fall apart along similar lines.
Kangaroos jump. You'd be better off with the reindeer.
...but it is the exception, not the rule, and the rule is what dominates.
Marching Morons is a real problem, and oddly enough natural selection is its right-hand man.
There ain't no God gene.
Your Pentium IV analogy is hilarious!
Who took parts of the primordial cell and "rearranged them and added new stuff"? Time and chance? Or researchers aided i their planning by powerful computers and reams of physics?
Who dictated the x86 lineage (I favour MIPS myself)? Breeding? Or policy decisions by managers?
Who sets policy for a cell?Well, I must say that you walked right into this one! (-:
Go and read any modern medical text on the subect to discover why doctors are becoming increasingly reluctant to excise such organs at a whim. What you'll find is that the scorn heaped on them was a product of our collective ignorance, coupled with the evolutionary assumption that such features would exist. Now we as a race know better, but evidently you've got some catching up to do. (-:
Damn, I replied to an AC again.
But I don't see how massively amplifying the negative factors as well as the positive in any way helps your case.
No transitionals, ever-increasing range and overlap for our index fossils, a single massive explosion in complexity over a very narrow range, ecologically grouped fossils, fossils of incredibly delicate creatures, "boneyards" of fossils, fossils with soft parts intact or only partially fossilised, total stasis of form in everything from mosquitos to sharks, and full-blown complex critters (e.g. trilobite) right at the bottom of the stack.
From this, it is obvious that either there has been no evolution, or our dating systems are totally cocked up, or both.
The logical consequence of this is that Darwinian theory is not so much wrong as irrelevant.
Irrelevant or not, it's still wrong. Darwin imagined each of the billions of cells of which we consist to be - as his buddy Earnst Haeckel put it - "a simple little lump of albuminous carbon". In that light, which to us today looks breathtakingly insane, molecules-to-man evolution looked like a reasonable proposition. Given what we now know, it's far beyond merely inadequate for the task. But who ever said that all religions were rational?
A whacking great mirror across the front? (-:
And the hymns?
When you write about something, there is lots that you can't put into words, but you can do stuff that a photo can't, for example, you can describe smells, sounds, the temperature, wind, your own feelings, all manner of stuff that won't fit through the lens, and some of which might drastically change a listener's perception of the scene. OTOH, the sensor behind the lens captures an enormous amount of detail which words could never adequately convey, even though you published an encyclopaedia describing just one scene. Video would also capture sound and motion, but at a lower resolution. Each method loses some richness somewhere, and that can be important.
Here is where those sidebands come into play, and we run into several critical features of the situation which completely invalidate your approach. Interestingly enough, natural selection is one of the key problems in your scenario.
Problem number one: suppose that the Shuttle started out with a high-wing design, but that turbulence rendered it much less practical than the present configuration. So sooner or later we get a randomly mutated Shuttle in which one of the wings is lower - and it promptly destabilises on re-entry and scatters itself all over the landscape. Then one fine aeon we get another Shuttle with both wings a little lower - but because the main spar has to run through the body instead of across it, the SSME's don't work so well any more, so it never hits orbit. It seems obvious that massive changes are going to be disruptive enough to prevent an advancement in wing placement by large steps. This is opaque to the probability theory you're using.
Problem number two: we get a Shuttle with one wing only a centimeter lower than the other. We are hopeful that our candidate is the first in a long line leading to low-winged Shuttles. We watch and wait expectantly, but since the difference in wings conveys no immediate advantage, our Shuttle is not selected for an the low-wing gene is eventually diluted to extinction by the many, many copies of the high-wing gene. This is also opaque to the probability theory you're using.
Problem number three: Shuttles take resources to build. You get a finite number of Shuttles over a finite span of time to experiment with. The probability theory so far deployed is too simplistic to incorporate such limitations, but they have decisive effect on the possible outcomes.
You may well argue that there are a lot of microbes with very short generation times, and there are, but it's still a very long way short of enough candidates to explain the supposed derivatives we now see - and of course the argument disintegrates completely when faced with whales, turtles or macaw, all of which have quite long generational times.
There are many more problems, but it's a busy day today.
Not to mention incapable of making orbit. Oh, well...
Even if I were to cede you that in its entirety, which I don't, the mechanism han't got anything like the traction to explain what we observe.
Problem number four: not all of the unhelpful modifications will have
...other than How To Become Insanely Rich Through Dumpster Diving?
Maybe How To Justify Everything You Do, Hypocritical Or Not. Windows still occasionally bluescreens when you plug a new device in, years after this faux pas, in which Trey explains "that must be why it hasn't been released yet". Billions in cash, but still hasn't ironed out the bugs == "we don't really care about the bugs". Quality is not Job #1, getting the money is.
...in an "I link". (-:
Sometimes a program can be a lot more efficient if it wasn't hobbled by starting with the only available native approach to doing things. Portability generally equals abstraction, and that abstraction can be valuable. The incredible number of applications badly nobbled by being jammed into Microsoft's bizarre idea of an MDI is a long-standing example.
And of course the time-consuming part goes away when you factor in the pain in tracking API changes and chasing down weird bugs when you tightly integrate, problems whiach are a lot more transparent with a more generalised set of underpinnings. This is not helped by the lack of alternate debugging platforms, on which you can quickly find out whether the problem lies within your code or the system you're writing to, not to mention flushing out subtler bugs by being able to change fundamental things like endian-ness and word size.
Then when the platform you tightly integrated with gets obsoleted, or your major client(s) change platforms, or the API you integrated with suddenly becomes expensive (as happened with MS-Office after they undermined their visible competition) you're up sheeite creek in a barbed-wire canoe, sans paddle.
...but they don't have that pause at the beginning while a 20MB+ VM spins up, they don't have Microsoft shipping mutant versions of the standard, and they're a lot more fun to write.
Finally, as a Java afficiondo, you can have the best of both worlds in at least two different ways as well.
...is cephyn wishing for an "edit" button on slarshdort. (-:
That's spelled "MafiaSCO".
I loaned my spare Linux workstation to my sister-in-law, who at the time bemoaned the absence of PhotoShop.
Now she still misses the odd PS feature but also sorely misses GIMP features when on PS, the convenience of Konqueror and Firefox when stuck with MSIE and Windows Explorer, and really hates the constant crashing (I swapped her CD burner for a DVD burner yesterday and her machine had been up for 183 days since the last power failure - she never saves, with obvious consequences after five hours' typing up of a document on one of her kids' school's computers, I've seen an image left open on her machine for more than a week while she tries various stuff on it; her oldest son built a Klaymen figurine over the reset button out of plasticene, where it's been sitting for more than a month and she didn't notice). I'll update that machine soon so she can have GIMP 2.2, which is all-over much nicer than the 2.0 she's using.