Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:And the scientific evidence for this conclusion (Score 1) 390

> 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.

Comment: Stud factor. (Score 1) 641

by MikeFM (#48555369) Attached to: How Relevant is C in 2014?
So long as programmers feel the need to write C to show off what studly coders they are we'll be stuck with C. We'd all be better off if we could spend less time fixing C-related bugs and concentrate on making sure safer languages were just as fast and functional. I'd suggest C# as a better alternative but recently I've been discovering how stupid its handling of byte order is. It's not a bad language except the amount of idiot Microsoftisms it has. C++ is just as bad as C. Objective-C is a mix of genius and insanity. Java is its own set of kludges. Python is nice but slow. Go isn't enough of an improvement. ... Not sure we're ready to replace C yet but we should get ready.

Comment: Re:How important is that at this point? (Score 2) 197

by NanoGator (#48030483) Attached to: Adobe Photoshop Is Coming To Linux, Through Chromebooks

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.

.. or something like that. In the list you gave me, points 1 through 4, and 7, are irrelevant if somebody already has Photoshop. Given its de-facto marketshare, that is likely.

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.

Comment: Re:How important is that at this point? (Score 4, Interesting) 197

by NanoGator (#48029179) Attached to: Adobe Photoshop Is Coming To Linux, Through Chromebooks

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.

Comment: Re:Well, do it, then (Score 1) 655

by MikeFM (#44430077) Attached to: What's Stopping Us From Eating Insects?
I'd rather live as a gypsy with some sort of fold-out home in a box but mostly don't because other people find that weird and thus it doesn't fit well into our social structure. Try filling out a job application and when they ask your address put "parking lot".. yeah makes it difficult. I think that's why most our nomads are either social dropouts (we even call them homeless) or old enough and wealthy enough to not need employment anymore. So it's not really because I can afford not to live in a tent so much as socialization.. and probably the same is true with eating insects. If it suddenly became cool to eat raw insects people would do it and spend more for it even if it's pretty gross.. like sushi.

Comment: Re:They're gross looking (Score 1) 655

by MikeFM (#44430045) Attached to: What's Stopping Us From Eating Insects?
Ever tried to buy nutrition sticks? It's not the easiest thing to do. Try to find a pill, stick, or something like that that includes all the vitamins, protein, calories, etc that you need to live without any additional food. All I've seen were either missing major elements or cost so much as to not really be worth eating instead of food. I guess other than geeky people that aren't supposed to eat anything they actually like anymore there isn't a large market for nutrition sticks. Heck, I have clerks at the grocery store ask me what turnips are when I buy them so I guess they sell a lot more packaged stuff loaded with carbs and artificial flavors.

Comment: Re:Good Question (Score 1) 655

by MikeFM (#44429907) Attached to: What's Stopping Us From Eating Insects?
Have you ever tried to BBQ a fly? It's extremely difficult to get it to come out with the right flavor and tends towards being to crunchy. And you just don't get that nice chewy texture! Heck finding buns to fit hot dogs is hard enough without finding buns to fit extruded bug guts. I don't really care what my food is made of so long as it's mashed into a nice faceless shape, bleached, dyed, and has lots of preservatives and artificial flavors added. If it doesn't eat you first or slap you then you can eat it.

Comment: iMac Frankenscreens (Score 1) 375

by MikeFM (#42915575) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: What Is Your Favorite Monitor For Programming?
Generally I just get the biggest baddest iMac as my main monitor, chain in an assortment of other monitors of different resolutions and quality, and hook my phones, tablets, and laptops to all act as additional monitors. If feeling extra geeky hook up some little screens via Arduino and maybe some projectors.

Comment: Digital currency better than sales tax. (Score 1) 297

by MikeFM (#42915351) Attached to: Congress Takes Up Online Sales Tax
Why not just let the idea of sales tax die and instead create a real digital currency similar to debit cards and let the government collect those fees instead of banks. There are reasons we decided on a national currency in the first place and those points apply to digital money as well as paper money and banks sure haven't shown themselves to be all that responsible. Banks do a good job of screwing both merchants and consumers and making their digital currency very un-democratic so not only would it be good to let the government collect these fees in lieu of taxes but it'd also be easy to improve on the current situation.

Comment: Re:No shit sherlock (Score 0, Flamebait) 500

It really comes down to the founders of the companies. Microsoft has taken on the personality of Bill Gates - lacks imagination, cares more about money than good products, etc. Apple has taken on the personality of Steve Jobs with a little bit of Woz thrown in - obsessive compulsive about solid products with good design, outwardly controlling but hacker friendly at heart. The reason Apple is kicking ass right now is because it does such a good job at constantly producing products that work well, look good, and don't change dramatically all the time. They may not have the highest specs at any given time but the user knows what to expect and that they can expect a pretty good device. When people say Apple is evil it just tells me they don't own any Apple products and know nothing of Apple's history. They're usually wannabe nerds that can barely use anything other than Windows and usually they think their awesome at Linux because they've managed to install the flavor of the month baby distro. They think hacking is taking a device that was expressly made for being hacked and following step by step directions. Probably they have absolutely no sense of taste either - they think their Dell Inspiron One is comparable to an iMac.

Comment: Re:no opt-out either (Score 2) 406

by MikeFM (#39048171) Attached to: AT&T On Data Throttling: Blame Yourselves
I still have my doubts about the claims that an iPhone costs $600 when a comparable iTouch costs $200.. for a 3G antennae and a better camera? And it seems I've read that the better camera doesn't cost very much more and should just be included in the iTouch too.. so how much does that 3G antennae cost?

Comment: Re:It's all the customers' fault... (Score 5, Informative) 406

by MikeFM (#39048089) Attached to: AT&T On Data Throttling: Blame Yourselves
As somebody that had an unlimited data plan for a couple years.. AT&T already has this down. My unlimited data plan on my iPad, with a solid 3G connection, struggled to pull down data fast enough to pull down a simple web page or email. So when are they going to refund money to people with unlimited plans that didn't get what they paid for?

Real programmers don't bring brown-bag lunches. If the vending machine doesn't sell it, they don't eat it. Vending machines don't sell quiche.

Working...