As I mentioned in another comment, SEQ waterways are full of bullsharks - so you're 100% correct. That doesn't make the story true.

The photo is from Wikipedia - it has nothing to do with the report.

There are no crocs in the Brisbane river. Bull sharks are common in waterways in Southeast Queensland. This could have been real, or not. I'm leaning towards not because it is just one person who though they saw something in some pretty messy waters.

Except that it's just his word with no evidence - that'd be one reason not to believe him.

It's hard to describe just how much junk was flowing through the flood waters last week. This really could have been anything.

So one person reports (unconfirmed) two bull sharks in flood waters. Local media the next day generally has the opinion the story is a load of bollocks and now almost a week later it appears on Slashdot (a news for nerds site) as fact.... OK.

If you want some (slightly) more nerdy stuff to report about the floods go research the Wivenhoe dam.

I've really got to stop reading idle stories.

Here is a site someone sent me that is collecting emails/signatures (hopefully for good!) as a petition:

http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/SaveTheNet/

One would presume that if Adobe ported Photoshop to linux it would have the same UI in terms of functionality as compared to the Mac and Win32 versions (which are the same apart from minor aesthetics). The same should apply to Linux - it's minor aesthetics only that make it different to the Win/Mac versions.

The UI in GIMP is crap because it isn't as user-friendly in a functional sense as Photoshop.

Well that and The GIMP is missing a lot of very important features that are found in PS.

As it stands, for me Photoshop is the last application that is really holding me back from fully switching to linux. The sooner Adobe port it over, the better :-)

• CowboyNeal
  

Ummm... I hate to break it to you, but that "throwing out" theories is part of the scientific process. Truth (whatever that may mean) is the pursuit of science just as much as religion. The two search for it in different domains however: science tries to answer the whats, hows, whens, etc.; whereas religion tries to answer the whys. I'm not trying to fuel a religion vs. science debate here. Creation stories such as Genesis are not necessarily inconsistent with scientific theories of the universe's creation and evolution. It's entirely possible to believe that "God created the heavens and the Earth", and also believe that the universe has evolved from a big bang, etc. The whats, whens and hows of Genesis are unimportant compared to the whys (I won't try pointing out those here!) BTW, was that the same absolute truth that Copernicus and Galileo so foolishly ignored?