To some extent, I agree with you, but honestly, it's sort of a "once you get it, you never go back" sort of thing.
I guess it may seem "unintuitive" at first, but really it's all about learning the shortcuts and practicing. Once you know them, modeling in Blender is faster and more satisfying than any other modeling program that I've tried.
So... should UI's of a specialized program be designed to be easy to learn, or very efficient once learned? There are definitely arguments for each of those (and others, probably), but I find it very slow going modeling in other programs now. If you're just going to throw together a really simple model, using Sketchup is great, but if you're actually looking to get into 3D modeling, learning a nice tool like Blender will be worth it.
You're right! Your "I don't think anybody finds it funny" argument is flawless. Now I realize that I only found their comics funny because I thought that, somewhere, SOMEBODY else thought they were funny. Eager to fit in, I quickly forced and tricked myself into enjoying it. THANK YOU for showing me the light.
I mean, why would I ever find awkward phrases like "Do you have snakes that come in sometimes? Don't stand for that shit!" hilarious?
All webcomics, hell all COMEDY is hit and miss. I cannot say that because one thing a person does is funny, everything else that that person does must necessarily be funny or else the first thing becomes unfunny. I find Penny-Arcade to be more often funny than not... so I like it. You might disagree.
$0.02 Most humans have an innate desire to believe there is a creator/God/Overseer because saving that their existence is, shall we say, POINTLESS. This is true in all casts/cultures/cities/continents etc. etc. If you took one hundred infants (the number isn't that important) and placed them in isolation with no contact to any other human their entire life there is a high probability that among other things they would have developed some form of religious belief to explain who they are.
That's an interesting claim... good luck ever actually getting that sort of experiment approved though. I guess that's why it's such an easy claim to make... things that are impossible to justify are also usually impossible to disprove, and you can hide behind that wall alllll day.
I mean look at it this way. If there is no God then when I die I haven't lost much but if God exists then things potentially get pretty sweet for me.
Ah, Pascal's wager. Such a common argument... but it's a bit silly. I mean, even the christian God is a jealous one that doesn't want me to worship other gods. What if the god that I choose isn't the "true" one, and the "actually true" god would rather I was an atheist than worship a false god? In that scenario, you, having "wagered" on the christian god, would be in a much worse situation than some atheist. Pascal's wager paints things as a 50/50 chance, but it seems pretty clear that that's not the case.
Also, is that sort of thing really belief? I don't think that I could force myself to "believe" in the christian god in the same way that "He" would want me to if I were basing my belief solely on the benefits of getting into heaven and avoiding hell.
As far as the textbooks are concerned I believe there should be a reference to the reason the pilgrims left British rule (religious oppression) and that the pilgrims themselves were resolute in their belief in and worship of God since those are facts that are directly relevant to the subject matter. Anything not factual in content should be a footnote at best.
Bias creeps into "facts." You can be reporting the "facts" but still be demonstrating a slight (or, like Fox News, blatant) bias. Of course religion is and SHOULD be mentioned in History... it's an extremely influential force that, like it or not, changes the world. It explains peoples' motivations. It's how you present that data that's the issue.
And moreso, usually people don't get upset about history books with religion in them... it's mostly the "intelligent design" argument, which wants to be presented alongside scientific theory even though, by nature, it's not scientific.
Seriously, imagine how disadvantaged you'd be without internet these days. Should you be forced to use snail mail or drive an hour to be able to communicate with someone just because you live outside of where an ISP has decided to offer service? What other motivations can the government provide to private companies to expand their networks? While I really have no idea, I'd doubt that their government isn't going to help pay for the cost of these expansions.
Being denied internet essentially cuts you off from the rest of the world. While some people don't care, there are plenty of others that can't move to a place where it IS available, yet need a somewhat accessible connection to be able to function.
It's fair to say that players today have become conditioned to what the truly hardcore PC gamers would consider to be almost unacceptably high levels of latency
The average videogame runs at 30fps, and appears to have an average lag in the region of 133ms. On top of that is additional delay from the display itself, bringing the overall latency to around 166ms. Assuming that the most ultra-PC gaming set-up has a latency less than one third of that
Good thing you're posting as an AC.
Life would be so much easier if we could just look at the source code. -- Dave Olson