This is so naive. When will you admit that the best way to prevent HIV is to not have sex!? When will you admit that it is smart to use a condom? No one is asking you not to have sex. Go ahead and have as much sex as you want, if you screw up and end up with a life threatening STD that's your fault. Don't complain about it.
There is more than one reason to abstain from sex until you are responsible enough to handle it. One would be emotional, another is STDs, and another is religion, but don't pretend that the only reason not to have sex is some ridiculous restraining right wing dogma. Abstinence can be quite practical at times, just like birth control and condoms.
Well maybe you didn't catch the point of the last comment; it was sort of meant to be a joke, but now I have to respond seriously.
Who is shaming the people that have sex? It's not that hard to abstain from having sex or use a condom when you do have sex. That is what people are saying. No one is being a simpleton. They are simply stating that the best way to not get HIV is to not have sex! Would you not agree? Here you are labeling people as conservative. This is a problem. You seem to have made up your mind on exactly where you and others stand even though you say the issue is so very complex. This could be a problem if someone says something you think you disagree with. You are the one here trying to fight a war.
Furthermore, I would have thought that in criticizing simplified views on the issue you would have brought up the true injustice of AIDS. Adults in first world countries know how HIV spreads and how they can prevent it. If they choose not to use a condom that's their fault. If they don't get tested or know about their partner that's their fault. People in places like South Africa might not know exactly how HIV works. I've been to Guguletu and Clarke's Estate. I've seen how people are living. What's more, people in places like this are born with HIV.
So stop whining about how every adult in the first world is a sexually active hypocrite. Many of the people who claim that not having sex or using a condom is the best way to prevent the personal acquisition of the HIV really don't have sex or use condoms. To top it off, they are right. Please do not act like everyone has the same lifestyle; people are different.
It is important that people in need of help are helped regardless of how they came to be in the situation. People in jail should get fair help in turning their lives around and the assumption that they have amazing human potential. Thirteen year olds should not be sentenced to life in prison. Black people should not be treated as another race of people with differing potentials for success in different areas. People with AIDS should have the promise that they will not be left behind by humanity. Stop trying so hard to be politically correct.
Yes, and how exactly is it necessary that life "came from Mars?" Did Earth have some shortage of qualifications for life to develop here? If you are going to say "it came from a Mars rock," please explain exactly how you know the rock is specifically from Mars, how it got off of Mars in the first place and happened to smack into a location on Earth at a time when by chance, the conditions on earth were somehow friendly to life adapted to a/completely different/ planet.
Also, rocks don't just fall off of planets. No, the planets warp space so that the rocks are getting pushed outward by the normal force of matter in the planets. This is why we don't accidentally fly off of Earth and colonize life on Pluto.
What's more, nobody/knows/ anything, so don't be so certain about this. I am not saying it's wrong, I am just saying that it's a hypothesis where people are gathering evidence for and against it. There probably isn't absolutely tons of evidence for any ideas about Mars, seeing how we haven't really been there that often and all we know is what we can see by analyzing the frequencies of electromagnetic radiation that is allowed to escape from the planet's surface.
I can pretend I'm smart just like everyone else.
If anyone was thinking about actually going to some of these headquarters and just punching the shit out of some of these people, I am here to highly encourage you!
What other source has as many nicely encoded music videos as apple? TiVo? 2000 is a lot of music videos! Also, don't you think Apple is going to surprise with extra weekly video content? By the time January rolls around, who knows how much there will be.
In my opinion, the point that "intelligent designists" are trying to make is that we are unable to completely explain an objective reality through science. Now, they are trying to make up for this by teaching "alternative ideas." Wouldn't it be much better to explain the meaning of science, it's uses, different views of why it is important, and its philosophical limits? When was the last time your high school or college science teacher sat down and explained that we are limited by perception and that objective reality might be completely different from what we perceive but we wouldn't know it because we will never have experiences outside of our own limited perceptions? People don't realize this. It is very subtle, but important; it's a grain of salt or whatever you want to call it.
Einstein must have had a rough second half of his life in dealing with nonlocality and seeming nondeterminance in the universe that is clearly presented by quantum mechanics. We have not been able to explain things on the most fundamental levels yet, but dogmatic liberals would love to tell the right wingers that everything has been figured out, and religion isn't a part of it.
Now, I'm a firm believer in the eventual/theoretical ability of science to explain everything completely, but wow, we are far from that. Maybe I'm some kind of idealist, but I think that most non-instrumentalist scientists are as well. However, to think that the most advanced of our understanding is actually to the point of being able to fully refute religion is arrogant, and depending on some wild idea that we are fully to that point is arrogant as well.
The fact that reality is so nonintuitive and nonobjective seems like it should be extremely discouraging to both secular and religious dogmatists. Since it isn't, I can conclude that both extreme beliefs are caused by some sort of blind faith and not understanding. Do not tell me that you understand everything. Perhaps you have been able to reconcile everything you know, but you do not understand everything or you would have one some incredible prize.
For example, a kid in my math class always told me how all of these magnificent speciations had been observed all over the place but he failed to tell me one of them. I was able to find more speciations on my own without the end goal of making fun of fundamentalists. Sadly, he is the one bashing Religion the hardest. He trusts so much in the scientific community that he feels safe enough to lazily drop any attempt to actually understand anything he so firmly believes in. Religious people do this all of the time. He would believe anything he saw on the cover of Discover without even reading the article. If he read the article and couldn't understand it or it was oversimplified and lacking detail, he would still believe it (I am just using Discover as and example of a simplified version of scientific thinking and am in no way saying it isn't accurate). I guess this could be called dogmatism.
Furthermore, labeling anyones beliefs as "magic" implies that you/fully/ understand not only what they believe and why they believe it but also what they believe stems from, and that even after you fully understand all of this you would still ridicule it. If you have felt like saying "how on earth could anyone ever believe that!?" then I would say you probably don't have enough understanding of their belief to credibly ridicule it.
Also, I think we need to separate the engineers from the real scientists ; )
No but seriously, education in America is all about the money. I am so saddened to see all of these people who could care less about the fundamental reasons why things do what they do. Instead, they memorize all of these intricate patterns science has found in reality and use them to be engineers and make money so that they can buy a house and send their kids to college. It is so sad. That's why I love physics so much.
Blender is obviously lacking specific controls for "features" that are embedded in mainstream, expensive 3D suites like Maya or 3DS Max, but that doesn't mean you cannot accomplish the same effects as many of these "features." (Fur simulation, fire and smoke simulation, etc).
With painting, you use a paint brush and paint. You don't have specific brushes for painting different shapes (like a dog shape and a chair shape). You use the same tools. The "limited" features in Blender are similar to using a paint brush instead of more specific specialized brushes.
Also, many of the trivial features that Blender does lack currently are being added very quickly. The Open Movie Project (http://orange.blender.org/) is making Ton and the other developers/very/ aware of the small specific problems that filmmakers face when using blender to make a film. If you check the Orange project site there is a blog showing all of the features they are adding specifically for the open film project. Just recently they coded in IPO drivers (sliders for controlling facial movement and such) and fur/hair (supposedly it only took them about 3 hours to organize what they already had in to a good particle fur/and/ hair system!!!).
Blender's interface is extremely smooth after some getting used to. You don't have to deal with millions of annoying windows and 3D and menu navigation are consistent with one another. Modeling is also wonderful in Blender, even though it lacks some welding and bridging type features. These will probably come soon with the advent of the finished half-edge modeling system (for those familiar with Wings 3D).
Slashdot Mirror
This is so naive. When will you admit that the best way to prevent HIV is to not have sex!? When will you admit that it is smart to use a condom? No one is asking you not to have sex. Go ahead and have as much sex as you want, if you screw up and end up with a life threatening STD that's your fault. Don't complain about it. There is more than one reason to abstain from sex until you are responsible enough to handle it. One would be emotional, another is STDs, and another is religion, but don't pretend that the only reason not to have sex is some ridiculous restraining right wing dogma. Abstinence can be quite practical at times, just like birth control and condoms.
Well maybe you didn't catch the point of the last comment; it was sort of meant to be a joke, but now I have to respond seriously. Who is shaming the people that have sex? It's not that hard to abstain from having sex or use a condom when you do have sex. That is what people are saying. No one is being a simpleton. They are simply stating that the best way to not get HIV is to not have sex! Would you not agree? Here you are labeling people as conservative. This is a problem. You seem to have made up your mind on exactly where you and others stand even though you say the issue is so very complex. This could be a problem if someone says something you think you disagree with. You are the one here trying to fight a war. Furthermore, I would have thought that in criticizing simplified views on the issue you would have brought up the true injustice of AIDS. Adults in first world countries know how HIV spreads and how they can prevent it. If they choose not to use a condom that's their fault. If they don't get tested or know about their partner that's their fault. People in places like South Africa might not know exactly how HIV works. I've been to Guguletu and Clarke's Estate. I've seen how people are living. What's more, people in places like this are born with HIV. So stop whining about how every adult in the first world is a sexually active hypocrite. Many of the people who claim that not having sex or using a condom is the best way to prevent the personal acquisition of the HIV really don't have sex or use condoms. To top it off, they are right. Please do not act like everyone has the same lifestyle; people are different. It is important that people in need of help are helped regardless of how they came to be in the situation. People in jail should get fair help in turning their lives around and the assumption that they have amazing human potential. Thirteen year olds should not be sentenced to life in prison. Black people should not be treated as another race of people with differing potentials for success in different areas. People with AIDS should have the promise that they will not be left behind by humanity. Stop trying so hard to be politically correct.
Well your the one with the attitude! I'd say someone here is a "HYPOCRIT!"
I hope this is for facebook! Maybe to expand the new photo galleries?
Metal Oxide is not as dangerous as you think it is. Have you heard of Milk of Magnesia? Antacids?
Yes, and how exactly is it necessary that life "came from Mars?" Did Earth have some shortage of qualifications for life to develop here? If you are going to say "it came from a Mars rock," please explain exactly how you know the rock is specifically from Mars, how it got off of Mars in the first place and happened to smack into a location on Earth at a time when by chance, the conditions on earth were somehow friendly to life adapted to a /completely different/ planet.
Also, rocks don't just fall off of planets. No, the planets warp space so that the rocks are getting pushed outward by the normal force of matter in the planets. This is why we don't accidentally fly off of Earth and colonize life on Pluto.
What's more, nobody /knows/ anything, so don't be so certain about this. I am not saying it's wrong, I am just saying that it's a hypothesis where people are gathering evidence for and against it. There probably isn't absolutely tons of evidence for any ideas about Mars, seeing how we haven't really been there that often and all we know is what we can see by analyzing the frequencies of electromagnetic radiation that is allowed to escape from the planet's surface.
I can pretend I'm smart just like everyone else.
this stuff really pisses me off.
If anyone was thinking about actually going to some of these headquarters and just punching the shit out of some of these people, I am here to highly encourage you!
What other source has as many nicely encoded music videos as apple? TiVo? 2000 is a lot of music videos! Also, don't you think Apple is going to surprise with extra weekly video content? By the time January rolls around, who knows how much there will be.
In my opinion, the point that "intelligent designists" are trying to make is that we are unable to completely explain an objective reality through science. Now, they are trying to make up for this by teaching "alternative ideas." Wouldn't it be much better to explain the meaning of science, it's uses, different views of why it is important, and its philosophical limits? When was the last time your high school or college science teacher sat down and explained that we are limited by perception and that objective reality might be completely different from what we perceive but we wouldn't know it because we will never have experiences outside of our own limited perceptions? People don't realize this. It is very subtle, but important; it's a grain of salt or whatever you want to call it. Einstein must have had a rough second half of his life in dealing with nonlocality and seeming nondeterminance in the universe that is clearly presented by quantum mechanics. We have not been able to explain things on the most fundamental levels yet, but dogmatic liberals would love to tell the right wingers that everything has been figured out, and religion isn't a part of it. Now, I'm a firm believer in the eventual/theoretical ability of science to explain everything completely, but wow, we are far from that. Maybe I'm some kind of idealist, but I think that most non-instrumentalist scientists are as well. However, to think that the most advanced of our understanding is actually to the point of being able to fully refute religion is arrogant, and depending on some wild idea that we are fully to that point is arrogant as well. The fact that reality is so nonintuitive and nonobjective seems like it should be extremely discouraging to both secular and religious dogmatists. Since it isn't, I can conclude that both extreme beliefs are caused by some sort of blind faith and not understanding. Do not tell me that you understand everything. Perhaps you have been able to reconcile everything you know, but you do not understand everything or you would have one some incredible prize. For example, a kid in my math class always told me how all of these magnificent speciations had been observed all over the place but he failed to tell me one of them. I was able to find more speciations on my own without the end goal of making fun of fundamentalists. Sadly, he is the one bashing Religion the hardest. He trusts so much in the scientific community that he feels safe enough to lazily drop any attempt to actually understand anything he so firmly believes in. Religious people do this all of the time. He would believe anything he saw on the cover of Discover without even reading the article. If he read the article and couldn't understand it or it was oversimplified and lacking detail, he would still believe it (I am just using Discover as and example of a simplified version of scientific thinking and am in no way saying it isn't accurate). I guess this could be called dogmatism. Furthermore, labeling anyones beliefs as "magic" implies that you /fully/ understand not only what they believe and why they believe it but also what they believe stems from, and that even after you fully understand all of this you would still ridicule it. If you have felt like saying "how on earth could anyone ever believe that!?" then I would say you probably don't have enough understanding of their belief to credibly ridicule it.
Also, I think we need to separate the engineers from the real scientists ; )
No but seriously, education in America is all about the money. I am so saddened to see all of these people who could care less about the fundamental reasons why things do what they do. Instead, they memorize all of these intricate patterns science has found in reality and use them to be engineers and make money so that they can buy a house and send their kids to college. It is so sad. That's why I love physics so much.
Blender is obviously lacking specific controls for "features" that are embedded in mainstream, expensive 3D suites like Maya or 3DS Max, but that doesn't mean you cannot accomplish the same effects as many of these "features." (Fur simulation, fire and smoke simulation, etc). With painting, you use a paint brush and paint. You don't have specific brushes for painting different shapes (like a dog shape and a chair shape). You use the same tools. The "limited" features in Blender are similar to using a paint brush instead of more specific specialized brushes. Also, many of the trivial features that Blender does lack currently are being added very quickly. The Open Movie Project (http://orange.blender.org/) is making Ton and the other developers /very/ aware of the small specific problems that filmmakers face when using blender to make a film. If you check the Orange project site there is a blog showing all of the features they are adding specifically for the open film project. Just recently they coded in IPO drivers (sliders for controlling facial movement and such) and fur/hair (supposedly it only took them about 3 hours to organize what they already had in to a good particle fur /and/ hair system!!!).
Blender's interface is extremely smooth after some getting used to. You don't have to deal with millions of annoying windows and 3D and menu navigation are consistent with one another. Modeling is also wonderful in Blender, even though it lacks some welding and bridging type features. These will probably come soon with the advent of the finished half-edge modeling system (for those familiar with Wings 3D).