1. Truly anonymous and cowardly Anonymous Coward posts sincere, frothing neoconservative hate rant. 2. A non-anonymous, somewhat bold Onymous Coward poses as a grousing neoconservative, accusing the (truly hate-mongering and ridiculous) Anonymous Coward of actually being a liberal in disguise, accusing the Anonymous Coward of only pretending to be a neocon, accusing Anonymous Coward of really being a liberal trying to denigrate neocons by coming across as a crazy neocon. In fact Onymous Coward really believed the anonymous coward was what he appeared at face value to be, a frothing anti-liberal. 3. You failed to see this was what was going on (understandably -- it's convoluted), and attacked the persona that Onymous Coward put out there.
The Jiu Jitsu here is in making the hatemonger second guess his tactic by feeling that his putative brethren are uncomfortable with being lumped together with such blathering and blatant nuttery, by making him feel like he's doing more harm than help to his own cause by being so strident. The idea is to trip up the annoying AC enough to get him to shut the hell up. I apologize for throwing you off balance in the process.
On reflection, since such raving really does harm the image and viability of the fundamentally xenophobic ideology of neoconservatism... I suppose I should just let him ramble on. It would benefit the world to have his philosophy marginalized by his own distasteful flogging. Tripped myself up! Whoops!
Hm. Disk space is cheap. Might as well make use of it. As computing cache.
Your FLACs might take up 10% - 13% more space... Not bad I suppose, depending on your usage scenario.
I think you can already kludge this from the command line with the image import option, but with the open spec it should be trivial to use the APPLICATION blocks to stow Oggs or MP3s or whatever. Oh, but I'm coming at this from a long-time FLAC user. Maybe the real answer should be use a container format like Ogg and stow FLAC and Vorbis data in it?
The fact that someone will actually defend this in hindsight is the most worrying thing of all. Would a full cavity search have been OK with you as well?
SHUT UP
That guy only shared a relevant fact. He did not defend the strip search.
And you whipped around and attacked him... for defending the strip search.
This is how civilization falls apart. So knock it off.
The SBL is a slow-to-add list, and well it should be -- it's manual. They get to do some sleuthing that digs up more than automated systems typically do.
And it's only one of three Spamhaus lists. You make no mention of whether the IP showed up on the XBL or the PBL.
Anyway, it's pretty widely understood that you need more than a DNSBL or two with greylisting to catch "everything". Together they do indeed catch a lot. But I can't imagine why you might try to use just XBL+greylisting as a complete anti-spam solution.
It seems my original post failed to be clear. Allow me try again:
I'm vegan and I like pork.
True, I try to minimize buying pork. And, yes, I think that buying pork promotes suffering. But this issue of reducing pork consumption isn't a matter of terror or rabidness.
When we get some quality vat meat produced, you can come to my luau. I'm also a big fan of skirt steak.
The overarching point is that it's easy to be a fuzzy thinker and to have comfortingly simple, black-and-white ideas of what a vegan is. That overly simple kind of thinking is comforting, but really it's unhelpful. Do I resemble your mental picture of a vegan? Do I seem rabid or terrorized? I hope not (or we've got additional problems). Sure there are people out there who are rabid vegans, but they probably also have an overly simple idea of what it means to be a vegan, causing them to condemn non-vegan behavior with severe, fuzzy-headed religious zeal.
Maybe we can agree that unrealistically simple thinking is harmful?
At this point, after having a little more light shined on the really-not-black-and-white concept of veganism, and after some discussion of the harm of simplistic thinking, does it make sense to respond with "yeah, but vegans are rabid food people"?
Neither vegan nor software libre philosophies necessitate zealotry. My sincere sympathy to you if your ears were made to ache by rabid proponents of either.
There exist level-headed proponents who make choices based on the practical implications of these philosophies more so than by emotionalism or terror.
Granted, they may be hard to engage in clear and rational discourse, especially if the outset of potential dialogue is marred by broad brush dismissals. That's not a problem, however, if reason and clarity aren't the objectives. Just depends on what you're after. My objective is typically to promote better understanding all around. (Though I do a poor job sometimes because I have a hair trigger snark response when people are belligerent.)
I'd like to share an idea here.
The basic philosophy behind veganism is reduction of suffering of all animals (including humans). Whether this exact concept is what you've run up against is a matter of personal experience. Philosophically I would consider myself aligned with veganism, but I love the taste of pig flesh. Mm. Anyway. I avoid buying it to avoid promoting agribusiness's tendency to cause suffering. But once you get that vat meat technology developed... it's bacon time.
Terror's got nothing to do with it. It's true that many self-identified vegans have a fuzzier concept of the philosophy and resulting practical implications than what I've just shared. I've run up against the nebulosity myself. At the vegan potluck I didn't get so much as a reply or even sour glance when I suggested that some day meat would be vegan. There I was dreaming about vat meat again, and the crowd just could not begin to process why this made any sense. A half second pause in conversation and then totally moved on. They didn't have a proper foundation to think from. Too fuzzy, I say. Folks need to understand the fundamentals more clearly, and work through implications in detail. The broad brush fails them. But fuzzy thinking fails detractors as well, if they be confused by the existence of lifestyle-oriented or fuzzy-moral-outrage vegans so that they can't see the true value inherent in the philosophy.
So if anyone here's got fuzzy, broad-brush thoughts about vegans and veganism, it might be worthwhile to refine that a bit.
And if anyone's got fuzzy, broad-brush thoughts about software libre, there's another area that might benefit from more sincere, less reflexive thinking.
There's precedent for sarcasm marks (sarcasm points), irony marks (irony points), doubt points, certitude points, acclamation points, authority points, indignation points, love points, and percontation points (rhetorical punctation).
I recommend for him a bit of research before he thinks he's invented something and certainly before he commends others to action. And before he names the find after himself.
Obviously this was someone pretending to be a crazed right-winger. Most likely it's one of those insidious liberals just posing as a frothing and stupid conservative for the purpose of making conservatives look idiotic. You know how those insidious liberals are.
Perl is very difficult to read if you don't know Perl, by which I mean all of Perl.
Rather...
Perl is very difficult to read if you don't know Perl, by which I mean as much of Perl as the guy who wrote the program used.
But, yeah, I'm with you. The basic idea is that you can't read Perl if you're not literate. At least to the degree of the author of the work you're reading. So, basically, anyone who says Perl is hard to read is a bystander.
Perl can be hard to read if you don't know it. But it can be wonderfully concise if you do. That concision is valuable, so I'll take that. Even if it means having to learn the language first.
1. Color-managed workflow - a must for even a serious amateur 2. Proper printing (see also 1) 3. No need to spend numerous hours learning a new UI and workflow 4. A massive library of plugins 5. Built-in stitching (used by landscape pros) 6. GIMP probably doesn't have Smart Filters and some other advanced doodads which have made later CS versions indispensable for those (admittedly few people) who know how to use them
1. I don't have work that requires rigorous color management so I don't use any such feature from GIMP, but I'll trust that you know what you're talking about.
Hey, wait a second! What's this, then! That was back in 2.4! Man, I'm going to have to be careful about trusting what you say.
2. You'll have to say specifically what's missing here.
3. That's a bogus complaint. I mean, the difficulty of learning a new interface, and even extra awkwardness because of being accustomed to another, is a legitimate issue, but it is not something unique or inherent to GIMP. But an already-learned interface is not something "a professional image editor [has] that GIMP doesn't" -- one still has to learn the interface of closed-source applications. It's a legitimate complaint outside the topic you're addressing.
4. Is there a specific plug-in capability that you think is lacking in GIMP's large provided-with-app plug-in library or is lacking in the available realm of plug-ins provided by third parties?
5. That's a pretty specific need. But at a glance I see four different plug-ins for stitching? Why is built-in critical here, especially on the heels of talking up the value of plug-ins?
6. As far as I can tell this is correct. I mean, Smart Filters. "Other indispensible advanced doodads" is vague, though, innit?
Any bets on when GIMP gets Smart Filters? Shortly before you start using it, perhaps?
It's nice to hear corroboration of the idea that competent and happy GIMP users are generally smarter and more capable graphics editors than their gripey counterparts, but I should beware my own confirmation bias. How many students are we talking about here? How many classes? Over what span of time? You mention bit depth and "pixels" -- are there more evidentiary details you can share to clarify your claim of their greater skill? Have you seen this greater skill tendency beyond your classes and students?
Now, with all that said (or asked), I should note that varying intelligence levels is just a fact of life. If Photoshop were indeed a sine qua non for less intelligent people, then that would just be the fact of the matter and it still ought to be possible to adjust GIMP's usability to be more competitive in the Stupider Market.
I mean, unless the resistance is due to sheer unfamiliarity with the interface. In which case that's a tough cookie. (But maybe even then...?)
Given infinite time and resources, [t]here isn't any program that can't be done well in C++
The assertion that you will somehow need infinite resources and time to develop programs, just because you're using C++, is completely false...
Mu.
I know it's complex, but I think you'll be able to understand. Try thinking about it more slowly.
He was saying there is not any kind of program that cannot be done well in C++ (with infinite resources). Whoa, confusing. Collapsed a bit, any kind of program can be done well in C++ (with infinite resources). Paraphrased, even programs that aren't well-suited to being done in C++ can be done well in C++ (with infinite resources).
Nowhere in this can we find the idea that "no program can be done well in C++" or "C++ necessarily requires infinite resources regardless of the type of program". Thus the appropriate response to your objection is "mu". Clearer?
I think "ugly" may be a fair, if underspecified complaint.
"Retarded" is on the other side of unspecific.
As a matter of fact, disagreement with the GUI is a central criticism, so hand-wavy complaint here is particularly counterproductive and annoying. "Awful" doesn't advance the dialog, either.
Note that "it's uncomfortably different from what I'm familiar with" is a valid complaint.
Slashdot Mirror
No worries. Really my fault for such silly convolution. Sorry.
Bathyscaphe hacking?
Clever idea.
Also interesting: That MP3 means "recording".
Okay, here's what happened:
1. Truly anonymous and cowardly Anonymous Coward posts sincere, frothing neoconservative hate rant.
2. A non-anonymous, somewhat bold Onymous Coward poses as a grousing neoconservative, accusing the (truly hate-mongering and ridiculous) Anonymous Coward of actually being a liberal in disguise, accusing the Anonymous Coward of only pretending to be a neocon, accusing Anonymous Coward of really being a liberal trying to denigrate neocons by coming across as a crazy neocon. In fact Onymous Coward really believed the anonymous coward was what he appeared at face value to be, a frothing anti-liberal.
3. You failed to see this was what was going on (understandably -- it's convoluted), and attacked the persona that Onymous Coward put out there.
The Jiu Jitsu here is in making the hatemonger second guess his tactic by feeling that his putative brethren are uncomfortable with being lumped together with such blathering and blatant nuttery, by making him feel like he's doing more harm than help to his own cause by being so strident. The idea is to trip up the annoying AC enough to get him to shut the hell up. I apologize for throwing you off balance in the process.
On reflection, since such raving really does harm the image and viability of the fundamentally xenophobic ideology of neoconservatism... I suppose I should just let him ramble on. It would benefit the world to have his philosophy marginalized by his own distasteful flogging. Tripped myself up! Whoops!
Sorry! Anonymous Hater, if you're listening, please carry on! Shout it, brother!
I don't think anyone's falling for your subtle scheme of trying to make conservatives look like rabid nutsos.
Damned liberal sock-puppet-operating conspirators.
Ooh, there you go.
Hm. Disk space is cheap. Might as well make use of it. As computing cache.
Your FLACs might take up 10% - 13% more space... Not bad I suppose, depending on your usage scenario.
I think you can already kludge this from the command line with the image import option, but with the open spec it should be trivial to use the APPLICATION blocks to stow Oggs or MP3s or whatever. Oh, but I'm coming at this from a long-time FLAC user. Maybe the real answer should be use a container format like Ogg and stow FLAC and Vorbis data in it?
Are you still so frenzied that you can't see?
Observer: "The crazy guy heard the little boy flipped him off, and the crazy guy responded by knifing the little boy."
Mob: "YOU MUST DIE FOR SUPPORTING THE CRAZY GUY!"
Bunch of goddamned snarling dogs in here. The lot of you need rolled newspapers.
SHUT UP
That guy only shared a relevant fact. He did not defend the strip search.
And you whipped around and attacked him ... for defending the strip search.
This is how civilization falls apart. So knock it off.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/William_Thomson,_1st_Baron_Kelvin
I think there's a good chance it's a lie. Hard to say, though.
Ah, yes, but only AFAYK. See, time is an illusion.
Off to lunch-
The SBL is a slow-to-add list, and well it should be -- it's manual. They get to do some sleuthing that digs up more than automated systems typically do.
And it's only one of three Spamhaus lists. You make no mention of whether the IP showed up on the XBL or the PBL.
Anyway, it's pretty widely understood that you need more than a DNSBL or two with greylisting to catch "everything". Together they do indeed catch a lot. But I can't imagine why you might try to use just XBL+greylisting as a complete anti-spam solution.
For a week:
4281 total connects: 90.79% rejected (or dropped), 9.20% delivered. (Unknown quantity nolisted.)
Of 394 delivered: 1.77% spam.
For the rejects: 41% bad HELO name, 35% XBL, 12% greylisting, 10% bad destination address, 1% spamcop DNSBL.
Together Spamhaus and greylisting account for half my blocks. That's worth keeping.
It seems my original post failed to be clear. Allow me try again:
I'm vegan and I like pork.
True, I try to minimize buying pork. And, yes, I think that buying pork promotes suffering. But this issue of reducing pork consumption isn't a matter of terror or rabidness.
When we get some quality vat meat produced, you can come to my luau. I'm also a big fan of skirt steak.
The overarching point is that it's easy to be a fuzzy thinker and to have comfortingly simple, black-and-white ideas of what a vegan is. That overly simple kind of thinking is comforting, but really it's unhelpful. Do I resemble your mental picture of a vegan? Do I seem rabid or terrorized? I hope not (or we've got additional problems). Sure there are people out there who are rabid vegans, but they probably also have an overly simple idea of what it means to be a vegan, causing them to condemn non-vegan behavior with severe, fuzzy-headed religious zeal.
Maybe we can agree that unrealistically simple thinking is harmful?
At this point, after having a little more light shined on the really-not-black-and-white concept of veganism, and after some discussion of the harm of simplistic thinking, does it make sense to respond with "yeah, but vegans are rabid food people"?
Neither vegan nor software libre philosophies necessitate zealotry. My sincere sympathy to you if your ears were made to ache by rabid proponents of either.
There exist level-headed proponents who make choices based on the practical implications of these philosophies more so than by emotionalism or terror.
Granted, they may be hard to engage in clear and rational discourse, especially if the outset of potential dialogue is marred by broad brush dismissals. That's not a problem, however, if reason and clarity aren't the objectives. Just depends on what you're after. My objective is typically to promote better understanding all around. (Though I do a poor job sometimes because I have a hair trigger snark response when people are belligerent.)
I'd like to share an idea here.
The basic philosophy behind veganism is reduction of suffering of all animals (including humans). Whether this exact concept is what you've run up against is a matter of personal experience. Philosophically I would consider myself aligned with veganism, but I love the taste of pig flesh. Mm. Anyway. I avoid buying it to avoid promoting agribusiness's tendency to cause suffering. But once you get that vat meat technology developed... it's bacon time.
Terror's got nothing to do with it. It's true that many self-identified vegans have a fuzzier concept of the philosophy and resulting practical implications than what I've just shared. I've run up against the nebulosity myself. At the vegan potluck I didn't get so much as a reply or even sour glance when I suggested that some day meat would be vegan. There I was dreaming about vat meat again, and the crowd just could not begin to process why this made any sense. A half second pause in conversation and then totally moved on. They didn't have a proper foundation to think from. Too fuzzy, I say. Folks need to understand the fundamentals more clearly, and work through implications in detail. The broad brush fails them. But fuzzy thinking fails detractors as well, if they be confused by the existence of lifestyle-oriented or fuzzy-moral-outrage vegans so that they can't see the true value inherent in the philosophy.
So if anyone here's got fuzzy, broad-brush thoughts about vegans and veganism, it might be worthwhile to refine that a bit.
And if anyone's got fuzzy, broad-brush thoughts about software libre, there's another area that might benefit from more sincere, less reflexive thinking.
So maybe it's not a problem?
Microsoft Internet Explorer Users Slow To Adopt New Release
http://www.crn.com/software/215901500
That's how I always took it. Good to see corroboration. (Might have felt a bit paranoid without it.)
Anyway, parent thinks he's invented something new?
There's precedent for sarcasm marks (sarcasm points), irony marks (irony points), doubt points, certitude points, acclamation points, authority points, indignation points, love points, and percontation points (rhetorical punctation).
I recommend for him a bit of research before he thinks he's invented something and certainly before he commends others to action. And before he names the find after himself.
Obviously this was someone pretending to be a crazed right-winger. Most likely it's one of those insidious liberals just posing as a frothing and stupid conservative for the purpose of making conservatives look idiotic. You know how those insidious liberals are.
While there may be a lot of theories that could be devised, that wouldn't mean there wouldn't be a most accurate one.
Here's one that probably works better:
People who are anxious about death tend to flock towards religion more than others.
(Conservatism is highly correlated with death anxiety (r=.50), and religiosity is correlated with conservatism.)
That was a result of a design flaw. They just had to build another. Some things take time. And iterations.
Anyway, the answer happened to be correct in base 13 -- that's got to count for something.
Rather...
But, yeah, I'm with you. The basic idea is that you can't read Perl if you're not literate. At least to the degree of the author of the work you're reading. So, basically, anyone who says Perl is hard to read is a bystander.
Perl can be hard to read if you don't know it. But it can be wonderfully concise if you do. That concision is valuable, so I'll take that. Even if it means having to learn the language first.
1. I don't have work that requires rigorous color management so I don't use any such feature from GIMP, but I'll trust that you know what you're talking about.
Hey, wait a second! What's this, then! That was back in 2.4! Man, I'm going to have to be careful about trusting what you say.
2. You'll have to say specifically what's missing here.
3. That's a bogus complaint. I mean, the difficulty of learning a new interface, and even extra awkwardness because of being accustomed to another, is a legitimate issue, but it is not something unique or inherent to GIMP. But an already-learned interface is not something "a professional image editor [has] that GIMP doesn't" -- one still has to learn the interface of closed-source applications. It's a legitimate complaint outside the topic you're addressing.
4. Is there a specific plug-in capability that you think is lacking in GIMP's large provided-with-app plug-in library or is lacking in the available realm of plug-ins provided by third parties?
5. That's a pretty specific need. But at a glance I see four different plug-ins for stitching? Why is built-in critical here, especially on the heels of talking up the value of plug-ins?
6. As far as I can tell this is correct. I mean, Smart Filters. "Other indispensible advanced doodads" is vague, though, innit?
Any bets on when GIMP gets Smart Filters? Shortly before you start using it, perhaps?
It's nice to hear corroboration of the idea that competent and happy GIMP users are generally smarter and more capable graphics editors than their gripey counterparts, but I should beware my own confirmation bias. How many students are we talking about here? How many classes? Over what span of time? You mention bit depth and "pixels" -- are there more evidentiary details you can share to clarify your claim of their greater skill? Have you seen this greater skill tendency beyond your classes and students?
Now, with all that said (or asked), I should note that varying intelligence levels is just a fact of life. If Photoshop were indeed a sine qua non for less intelligent people, then that would just be the fact of the matter and it still ought to be possible to adjust GIMP's usability to be more competitive in the Stupider Market.
I mean, unless the resistance is due to sheer unfamiliarity with the interface. In which case that's a tough cookie. (But maybe even then...?)
Mu.
I know it's complex, but I think you'll be able to understand. Try thinking about it more slowly.
He was saying there is not any kind of program that cannot be done well in C++ (with infinite resources). Whoa, confusing. Collapsed a bit, any kind of program can be done well in C++ (with infinite resources). Paraphrased, even programs that aren't well-suited to being done in C++ can be done well in C++ (with infinite resources).
Nowhere in this can we find the idea that "no program can be done well in C++" or "C++ necessarily requires infinite resources regardless of the type of program". Thus the appropriate response to your objection is "mu". Clearer?
I also think this particular version is a waste of money due to the recent UI changes made in the most recent GIMP version.
Waste of money? I'm not sure what you mean by this.
I think "ugly" may be a fair, if underspecified complaint.
"Retarded" is on the other side of unspecific.
As a matter of fact, disagreement with the GUI is a central criticism, so hand-wavy complaint here is particularly counterproductive and annoying. "Awful" doesn't advance the dialog, either.
Note that "it's uncomfortably different from what I'm familiar with" is a valid complaint.
You know it works.
http://openvoting.org/