> First, there is no reason to believe that we can built robots that can reproduce themselves.
What? This is exactly the technology humans are trying to reach! We're already a significant way down this path!!
> Second, there is no evidence that we or anyone else can build intelligent machines, as the original story seems to presuppose.
Nature did it. We can do it.
> Third, biological organisms are so many orders of magnitude more efficient and flexible than machines that it barely makes sense to put them into the same qualitative category "form of life".
This whole conversation is about extrapolating on the cosmic scale. If you look at the path robotics has taken in the last century it does, as pointed out, actually support the premise of this article.
> Hint: A human consumes only about 2.9 kilowatt hours per day, the equivalent of 1-2 light bulbs
Not relevant. Once machines are replicating and repairing themselves they'll do exactly what we do and find other sources of energy.
Frankly I agree with you that it's hard to picture Transformers inhabiting the universe, but OP did make a really good point that extrapolation isn't even in the ballpark of refuting this clown. Honestly I'm shocked he didn't come back with that XKCD cartoon.
Just wanted to thank you for the links. I was especially pleased to find that Python is supported!
Thank you! You've given me reason to sit up and pay attention when 3 rolls around, I appreciate that.
I would recommend against showing the more diehard Photoshop fans that link, though. It won't get you anywhere because what it really needs to be is a list like this:
- GIMP has a plugin/feature for automatically generating normal maps from elevation data.
- GIMP has a perspective correction feature that is superior to Photoshops in that it...
- GIMP's 'save all layers' button saves all of the layers in your file into seperate files.
5 is horribly overrated. Lots of artists can script, but few (if any) can make actual plugins or modify the source code. (Even if they do dig in to the code how do they maintain those features when a new version of GIMP comes along?) I do want to mention, though, that there's another reply to my original post that seems to have covered the scripting point. I haven't checked it out yet but given that scripting is something I do, I'm certainly interested in trying that out.
6 needs an extra line, something like: "its better than Photoshop's Batch feature because...."
10... actually this is a really good one. In fact, just before this thread started, I went and found the portable version and downloaded in. Why? Welp, if the scripting that Culture20 posted a link to turns out to be worthwhile for me, coupling that with a portable version of GIMP is *awesome*. What that means is I will be able to automate certain tasks AND keep a fresh install on my DropBox account so I can even use it off-site. This is 1 out of 9.5 (I gave partial credit to the source-code bit) and, as you can already see from other replies you've gotten, most are refutable.
I'm a little worried you might read my post and think that I'm trying to perpetuate the GIMP vs. Photoshop debate. I'm not, instead I'm trying to explain what needs to happen explanation-wise to get more Photoshop people to try GIMP out. I think there's this mentality that people should switch to GIMP and that's simply not true. If you got the professional Photoshop users to start using GIMP for certain tasks, you may find that some studios may find it worth their time to invest some development time into improving it. Given how Adobe has been dicking around with the licensing, this would be a good time to get that ball rolling. Start touting the unique features it has that shave man-hours off a project. If those features don't exist, then the team needs to start talking to people like me and finding out what else they need.
Care to run off a list of ways that "GIMP doesn't come close"? If it's really so bad, it shouldn't be that difficult to name at least a dozen or so... In actuality, I expect that enumerating the shortcomings of GIMP will not be in quantity, but in terms of a relatively small number of particularly desirable features that many may perceive as critically important in such software.
Hi, professional artist here. Your latter point, at least from my perspective, is correct. I know Photoshop really well, but since I make my living doing this work I am not biased in a way that'd prevent me from using a free tool. Let me be extra clear: It would hurt me to be fanboyishly loyal to be any particular app. I do pick up and mess with GIMP from time to time, but it has two critical omissions from Photoshop that make it unusable in my field. First, it lacks adjustment layers. Second, it lacks Smart Objects.
These are both features intended to do non-destructive editing of imagery. Let's say you have a tree with green leaves. You can create a Hue/Saturation 'adjustment layer' that will turn all the green pixels beneath it blue. If you put a picture of a different tree below that layer, its leaves would turn blue, too. If you took that tree and made it a 'smart object', you'd effectively be snapshotting that image and every operation you do causes it to regenerate itself. In other words, if you shrank a Smart Object down, then scaled it back up again, you'd get all its original detail back.
If you're creating imagery it doesn't take long for these two features to change your workflow in such a way that you gain a HUGE time savings. In fact I have created several templates to speed up the generation of images I do that I just plain cannot do in GIMP. Realistically speaking that is enough man-hours lost that I'd actually make a greater profit paying for Photoshop than I would saving the cost of the license in favor of GIMP.
With that said, I'd be *very* happy if you told me that version 3 would add these features. I'd also be very happy if somebody could tell me what GIMP does that Photoshop doesn't. It's free. if it shaves man-hours off my work, then load me up with the tips. I ain't gonna switch, but I ain't above using both.
Are there any other precautions I could or should take?"
Yeah. Buy yourself a laptop and use _that_ to watch pr0n.
Sorry: "read an ebook".
Less than a grand for a laptop. Worth the hassle, imho.
Depends on the price diff.
A 10-15% diff in price would be worth the the time and gas.
Sure as a dog returns to it's vomit, that will happen. About 2 seconds after they figure out this isn't working for them.
"Marissa Taylor says the retail chains' worst nightmare are consumers who come in to take a look at merchandise in-store, but use smartphone apps to shop for cheaper prices online.
This is no different from how I shop for groceries: look at the ads in the Sunday paper, find the coupons, shop for X and one store, Y at another, Z at the third.
Welcome to the 21st century. Get used to it, Target.
Have you considered Avon?
Set your own hours. Income potential is up to you. Lots of brand recognition.
It's not geeky, or technical, but it's easy to excel, and you're looking for _income_ right?
Email me, I can put you in touch with my wife who is an Avon lady.
brian.dunbar at gmail dot com
Freedom seems to be a lot like pr0n. You know it when you see it, hard to define otherwise.
What I Want My Society To Be
Government has the job of providing a regulated market. Such regulations are very minimal - the very least that we can have and still have a functioning market. As much as possible is done by private organizations. As much as possible is governed locally.
That's it. The rest is details worked out by individuals acting in their own self-interest.
Erk. That's not good. How were they found out?
One fellow attempted to detonate the explosives in his shoes. The other the explosives in his underpants. The former didn't blow up so much as set his shoes on fire.
Which is, yes, laughable. These guys are clearly a) zealots and b) ignorant. But they were serious attempts to do a lot of damage and kill people, even if the execution left a lot to be desired.
Congress decided it was reasonable, so how is it a violation?
I think the Supreme Court, not Congress, is in charge of interpreting the law. But just because _they_ say something is right, does not make it forever inviolate. Once upon a time we thought chattel slavery was icky, but legally okay. Later we changed our minds about that.
Times and morals change. Maybe someday we'll decide to live up to the meaning of the Constitution and be a free people.
Don't (he smiled) get me started on the death penalty. I have only a few qualms about it in theory: in practice we seem to spend a lot of time killing people who are innocent, were talked into a confession, or were just plain inconvenient to authority.
It was a hippie philosopher, Leary or Thoreau or one of those guys, that said if you're not worried you're not paying attention.
Well, we're talking about TSA and airport screening. Do these bombing attempts have anything to do with that?
IIRC at least two of them involved guys walking explosives, or components of explosives, through the checkpoint.
What exactly is your specific argument against airport screenings?
They are ineffective at preventing people from doing harm to others with, or aboard airliners.
Violation of the fourth amendment.
Granting increased powers to the state.
You can fool all the people all of the time if the advertising is right and the budget is big enough. -- Joseph E. Levine