MajesticTreeFrog

I don't know about palm for mobility, Granted, the last(and only) palm I owned was a few years ago, but I really wanted to stab it. I despised the thing very quickly, because the software at the time was not very robust, and it had lots and lots of useability issues.

Well, they do control some of the hardware, but I was talking about hardware I plugged into the mac, not video card drivers and such.In any case, the 'it just works' thing should be able to happen anytime a driver that works exists. Once a driver is common(as opposed to available, but the hardware is rare and therefore it makes a bad choice given any form of space consideration), then I should be able to plug something in and have it work.For instance, a game pad. I should be able to take a typical game pad, that operates in a normal fashion, and plug it into a linux box, a windows box, and a mac box and have it work on all of them without special drivers(unless I want to use features specific to that game pad. I also assume that the gamepad makers haven't been dicks and made their hardware work in weird non-standard ways that require a special driver. Manufacturers who do that should be dumped and not supported).

Indeed, the widely held idea that 'man came from apes' is a misunderstandingMan and ape both came from something earlier that was neither man nor the modern ape/monkey/etc.I am not sure if dolphin/dog have same common ancestor, at least directly.Finally, as hashbang stated, Evolution is a fact, Natural Selection is a theory that seeks to explain evolution. Debate over 'evolution' tends to be actually over Natural Selection, as a debate over evolution doesn't make sense.

I have used Cyberduck, but i don't like it that much. My favorite is still leapftp.

Sigh, It is clear that at some level, you just don't get it. So, I will try, one last time, to help you understand something basic, so that you can understand the rest of what I have typed, as you clearly don't.So, first, a question.Is it an act of faith to believe/expect for a ball to fall to the ground from your hand?Think about it, to you, is this an act of faith?I don't think so. At the same time, you cannot prove that it will fall. You can only show that as many times as you let go, it never fails to do so. Try as you might, you will never be able to prove that the ball will never ever just stay floating in the air.My question to you is, DO YOU GET THAT? Do you understand the nature of proof and scientific evidence, or more to the point, do you understand that proof, as you think of it, not only does not exist BUT CANNOT. Asking for it is therefore rather irrational. The only thing you can ask for is evidence showing something is wrong. So, In science, nothing, absolutely nothing, is ever true in the way you would *like* to think about things. Ideas, theories, hypotheses are simply repeatedly shown to be 'not false'. Please try to understand this. The reason why you seem to have a hard time interpreting and understanding my posts is this simple idea of 'not false' as opposed to 'true'. Finally, as for your comment about the gills, the child grows them but does not use them for oxygen exchange, they get all they need through the umbilical chord. I am sorry you have such a hard time understanding the concepts behind science. But please try before you condemn them.Also, you say that in order for my opinion to change, I would have to have my heart touched by God. Which one? Which God? Why, other than your upbringing, do you think your god is more likely the correct one than any other God someone might talk about?

The program you guys are looking for, in terms of power and features and cost($0) is Blender3d. It has tons of tutorials and documentation, and it runs on every single OS that you are probably using, Linux, Windows, and Mac. https://www.blender.org/ I intend to learn it myself sometime in the future.

you can also use CrystalSpace as a free 3d engine. In any case, hunt around on sourceforge for whatever it is you are looking for.

All right, I will try Knoppix again, or Gnoppix, since I think I will like gnome better than KDE. I will just have to wait till I head back to my apartment(I am visiting the folks for the holidays).No, I am not a windows person, I use it mainly out of convenience because it runs the games and software I use, thats it. I still want to stab it in the eyes a lot.So, i would like to move to linux. My experiences using it have all been bad though. Video stuff doesn't work, and is impossible to fix easily without carefully and manually editing xfree86 config files...which would take too much time to be worth it(time spent reading all the man pages and web pages just to get an idea of what needs doing, instead of getting work done for instance). I have tried a couple of flavors, and all of them gave me crap. The one that did best was actually a version of knoppix way back in the day. So maybe I should go back to that and see what I can get going.That being said, what are your recommended HD partitions for linux? Also, which do you think is better, ReiserFS or ext3, or something different?

Oh, once again I am not claiming that windows does this well. I do know that everything I have plugged into my mac has simply worked, no need to even install anything. This includes non-mac hardware like mice and keyboards(from microsoft no less), as well as a couple of more exotic things. Granted, thats not exactly stressing its abilities, but the thing was I never had to think about drivers. I plugged it in and it worked. No installation or anything. Thats the ideal. Now, with windows you can at least install stuff easily, by clicking a file, and this will at the minimum make something work(granted, once again there are exceptions, but that means don't buy cheap hardware). In my case, with my wireless card, it was a common card built by motorola. Like I said, I would love to kill windows, and if you would like to help me, that would be great, I am just pointing out the problems as I see them with linux. -That being said, feel free to open up a thread bashing windows, and I will happily join in there too.

Indeed, and really its not the number of applications that matter, but the quality of the applications for any given purpose. The mac has very high quality programs for most everything you need to do, and most of them are free. The only exception i have found is an IRC client. The free IRC clients aren't that good, and the pay IRC clients still aren't as good as mIRC for PC. There is an open source IRC client, but I don't like it very much, but perhaps that will change as it becomes more robust.

Ok, after some of the posts I had to make in the big bang theory thread, I decided that this subject probably needs its own post. So, Talk away. I suggest reading what I wrote in Big Bang Theory first, because that should answer most questions. I will answer anything else as best I can.

Partly, it is ability to save for the internet, which makes images much smaller without losing quality for posting on the internet(I think it does this my reducing the pallet and optimizing for that custom pallet, this means that editing the picture after it is saved is harder without making it bigger again, but for just downloading and viewing it is very nice).Having not used corel draw at all, I am not sure what features it has that I might care about, so part of it is simply familiarity. Other than that, the many layers and layer effects are very helpfull, along with photoshop's very very nice layer mask engine.The assorted plugins and filters are also very usefull and full featured. for my work, I use photoshop's brush engine, which is the most powerfull I have ever used. The only thing that comes close is Corel's Painter, but that works differently, and I wish painter had some of the abilities and layout of photoshop much of the time(though thats probably because I am mostly used to photoshop and not the other way around, there are also occasionally things i wish photoshop did better that painter handles well).

Yeah, and the thing is, I would love to help with that, because I would really like to dump windows. And if I don't like KDE, I can just use Gnome or something.

Well, you can come up with any NONPREDICTIVE theory, and then it is simply not testable. That does not make it true. Simply non-scientific and therefore not worth talking about. The point I am making is that your idea of proof is useless. YOU *CANNOT* proove that something will always happen, now and in the future. You can only demonstrate that it NEVER FAILS TO HAPPEN over and over again. You can also demonstrate that given one thing, another never fails to occur, which is called demonstrating causality. Doing this involves an empirical study, which is what that site you sent a link to demanded. In order to do any empirical study, you would have to take a couple thousand years, put some stuff in a box, and then make sure that everything was perfectly controlled, or you would have to start again. This could be done, but it would be a logistical nightmare. As for one species turning into a different species, this is actually where evolution started. Charles darwin found a number of similar, though distinctly different species on different islands. Some of these species could no longer interbreed. What had occured was speciation, where a species splits into multiple groups. Go read his 'Origin of Species' for more. Granted, science has honed things down with greater specificity than his original work, but you should still find it enlightening. One argument raised against evolution is something along the lines of 'but if things evolved wouldn't they be perfectly fitted to the world they are in, because organisms are imperfect doesn't that show that they were created?' Humorously enough, this is actually evidence FOR evolution. If there were intelligent design(especially by an all-knowing all powerfull being) then such mismatches would not exist. However, evolved creatures are created in part by chance and by heritage, an adaptation that was usefull before is now a hinderance, but is so common in the gene pool it takes a long time to finally leave completely(if ever). As just a random bit of info you might find interesting, while in the womb, human babies for a short time have gills. Actual gills, like those from fish. Go look it up and have some fun reading. As for one thing turning into another, that is less common to find in studies because it takes a long time, and is therefore a logistical problem. However, there was one bit of research done involving simulating the early environment and chemical makeup of the earth. In that study, arising from nothing but the chemical soup, bits of (I believe it was, but its been a while) RNA formed, which is the beginnings of what is necessary for life. DNA, btw, is simply two pieces of RNA put together. DNA splits and is reformed thousands of time in your body while you are reading this. DNA is in some ways more usefull, but it is just a big version of RNA in most respects. Strands of RNA are enough to create life on the level of a simple virus. In any case, the proof you want for evolution doesn't exist, but that does not mean it rests on faith, as you assert. To make an analogy, we do trials until evidence is found 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. The thing is, we cannot ever prove that any person ever did a crime positively, but instead we simply must show a preponderance of evidence that they did it and no one else, while at the same time showing that there is no evidence saying that they did not commit the crime. This is precisely how scientific proof works. By preponderance of the evidence and with a lack of countervailing evidence. This is why coming up with any theory you like doesn't make it true. In fact, you should discard the idea of true, you should instead use 'most likely possibility given the data'. The concept of true you would like to use SIMPLY DOESN'T EXIST, in any way shape or form, in basically every aspect of your life. The only things that have positive truths are mathematical assertions. Neither evolution nor creatonism are mathematical assertions, therefore thinking they are true must be based on the preponderance of the evidence. There is lots of evidence that evolution, or some process like it, occured. There is none for creationism/intelligent design, despite what that doctor of 'cryptozoology'(wtf is cryptozoology anyway? and where did he get his degree?) would have you believe. So, evolution is not true by proof, but instead by preponderance of evidence. The theory of evolution is taught in schools because it so far best fits the given evidence, and the things that it predicts, that we have had the ability to test, have so far tested correctly. Creationism is not taught in schools for a number of reasons. 1. In terms of biblical creationism, it simply does not fit known facts and data, and is therefore discarded. 2. In terms of the Intelligent Design movement, which doesn't make assertions like 'the world is 5000 years old or somesuch', it is not taught because it ALSO does not fit known data, as well as not being a very good scientific theory. The data it does not fit is such things as above, with the non-perfect fitness of species, the availability of genetic diseases and such. Also, creationism/Intelligent Design is not predictive. It does not tell us what will occur in the future. Therefore, IT IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC THEORY. If it is not a scientific theory, then it doesn't belong in a science classroom. Come back when you have a testable theory, and then maybe people will talk, and if it is tested and peer-reviewed, then people will actually listen to you.

Oh, and just to pre-empt any more silliness, allow me to do a quick rundown about the nature of scientific evidence and 'proof'.Modern science does not arise from 'proof', it arises from a lack of disproof. For instance, you cannot prove gravity exists positively. Sure, you can drop a ball and then say 'AH HAH! SEE!!! it happens!', but this is not proof that the ball will ALWAYS drop, which is what the theory of gravity states(provided you are in a gravity field generated by a mass, yadda yadda). Instead, ALL science rests on the lack of DISPROOF. Gravity states that the ball will fall, therefore, as soon as we find a ball that doesn't fall, we either have to toss gravity out the window, or adjust the theory to account for the new information.So, whenever people ask for scientific 'proof' for anything, ANYTHING AT ALL, they are asking for something that can't be given. Thats just not how science works. In mathematics, you CAN create proofs of the positive sort, and some parts of science, which are based directly on such mathematics, can gain that advantage as well. However, these are the exceptions, not the rule. So, given that science advances through lack of disproof, this means certain things must be true for any scientific theory. The big important one is 'disproveability'. In order to be disproveable, a theory must predict what will occur in the future. It is easy to explain why something happened in the past, we can explain it all sorts of ways, and there is NO way to *prove* that our old explanation was false, no matter what it was. However, it IS possible to take that same explanation, set up a new situation, and see if they explanation is capable of predicting the new situation in a consistent manner. For instance, I can say that a genie pushed a ball towards the earth, which is why it fell. There is no way to show that this is false without going back in time, or figuring out a way that is guaranteed to show invisible genies.So, a theory must predict what will occur in the future under specific circumstances. But this, too, poses a potential problem. What if there are two theories that both predict the same thing will happen, and both correctly predict an occurance. How do you know which one is correct? Moreover, who does one know that it is JUST those two possibilities, and not a third one we just haven't thought of yet?The answer is, initially, you don't. The only way to know which one is correct is by having it be the most successful at correctly predicting future events. The other way is breadth and precision. For instance, we could say that a ball will always fall, or we could say that a ball will fall at a rate of 9.8m/s^2. Both are correct, but the second is more specific. For breadth, we could say that a ball will fall when released or we could say that any object heavier than air will fall when released. The second has greater depth, and it is therefore considered the better theory, because it predicts more. Note that the more specific or broad a theory, the more ways it can fail. Because such a theories opens itself up to more ways of disproof, it is considered more impressive when disproofs do not occur, and is therefore considered a better theory.SO, for the purposes of any debate about science, evolution,etc, please keep this information in mind. Anyone requestion scientific *proof* that such and such happened a long time ago is just blowing smoke and trying to sound impressive. The best they can ask for is evidence that such an occurence was likely.On a different note, much appologies to the mods/admins for allowing these posts to once again get things off topic, but I tried with my post 2 posts up. In any case, I hope these last two posts will put an end to pointless off-topic chatter.

Hey Chronic, what is Cinema4d like, I have never used it. Is it just another 3d package like lightwave/maya/max/etc? Or does it have different features?

Ok, You have a lot of incorrect information in your post. What happens with angular momentum is NOT that objects coming off a spinning object continue to rotate the same direction they did before. The move in straight lines in a direction tangent to the point of the circle they were moving in before. As for evolution, Let me run a quick check to make sure you have some idea what you are talking about. 1. Evolution and Natural selection are two different(though related) things. 2. Evolution is the fact that species change over time(note that this is a fact, it can be demonstrated in a Lab, and I have personally done so. Its not even hard). Specifically, the genes and gene frequency across a species change. That does not mean a species has to stop 'being a species' or anything like that, though that can happen(called speciation). 3. Natural Selection is a theory of how evolution occurs. There is some disagreement over whether or not Natural Selection accounts for all of the evolutionary changes we have evidence for. Evidence 'disproving' Natural Selection does *NOT* disprove evolution. For instance, scientist Stephen Gould has an opposing theory called punctuated equalibrium. In a lot of ways it is similar to NS, but I don't know enough about punctuated equalibrium to go into details. 4. Natural Selection generally states that organisms change over time due to differences in breeding. Specifically, those organisms in a species that produce more offspring than other organisms have more of their genes in the next generation, therefore further increaseing the statistical probablilty of this happening again(creating a genetic drift towards the more 'fit' genes). This *happens* and is a fact, and can be demonstrated in a lab(which I have also done personally). The only question is whether this effect(and side effects like speciation) can account for the diversity found on earth. 5. Whether or not you think that NS is a theory capable explaining all of the diversity on earth, there are some more things you should know about evolution. Specifically, in order for evolution to not occur(as in, in order for evolution to be false, given that we *Know* that people pass down genetic information via breeding), the following things must *ALL* be true. 1. No migration or separation a species into different, distinctly breeding groups(This is false, therefore evolution must happen) 2. Infinite population of a species(obviously false, therefore evolution must happen) 3. Random mating within a species(also obviously false, therefore evolution must happen) 4. No natural selection, as in, no predators or natural events occuring that cull out organisms in a species due in any way to genetic factors(like speed, size, etc). (Also obviously false, therefore evolution must happen). There is one more rule, I believe, but I don't remember what it is. Still, It should be obvious that 'Evolution Happens', because it has to. For those of you who do not understand why the above rules must *all* be true in order for evolution to not occur, allow me to explain: 1. If part of a species is separated from the rest of its species such that the two parts do not mate, then evolution will occur. This is because the part that broke off will no longer have the same gene distribution as the original, full species as a single group(the exception being that they break off group has identical gene frequency and also has infinite population). As such, breeding will create a change in the genetic makeup of that group of the species. If this happens long enough, it may become a separate species entirely and no longer be able to breed with the original species(this is called speciation). 2. Infinite population. If a species does not have infinite population, then some genes, even if there is random mating, will become more common by shear chance. This is the definition of evolution. That it happens by luck doesn't matter. Since populations are not infinite, evolution happens, end of story. That doesn't mean it happens fast(evolution is a slow process in any case). 3. Random mating. If organisms in a species do not mate randomly, then certain gene combinations will occur more frequently than others. This will cause a genetic shift. This is evolution. Since organisms do not randomly mate, evolution happens. 4.No Natural Selection. If predators, or the environment, cause organisms in a species to not breed with equal intensity as other organism in a species, then the genetic makeup of the species will shift as certain unhelpfull genes breed less, and therefore make up less of the gene pool. This will happen even if there is random mating. Since natural selection occurs(once again, whether or not it explains everything is irrelevent. It DOES occur, proveable so.)then (say it with me now!) EVOLUTION HAPPENS. And because I am tired of typing about this, allow me to finish up with a quick link that might help dispell some other silliness. http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/ Thank you.

Ok qwijibow, I am trying to put a working copy of linux on my PC, and as you well know, forces of sillyness have prevented this from happening. I would like something like debian, because my last experience with a RPM based distro gave me headaches with dependencies, and that is(once again, say it with me)"bad interface design" and an aggravation I don't want to deal with. So, Do you have any suggestions on what debian based distro I could use to get things off the ground?

Bochs emulates the x86 instruction set. You could for instance run Bochs, and install an x86 version of linux on it, if you wanted to(WHY?? I have no clue. You could also install DOS and run old DOS programs though). VirtualPC is a windows emulator. It can emulate mutliple versions of windows, simulate reboots and stuff like that. From what I understand(never had need of it personally), it is nicer than running an actual copy of windows(though slower) because you can 'undo' things in windows, like installing a program, and so on. So, if you do something that would break windows, instead of going the route you would with a windows box(screaming damn it and then reinstalling), you can just roll back everything that happened and try and fix it.However, VirtualPC does cost money so Wine is better in that regard. However, WineX and Crossover office also cost money, and they are(as far as I know) the best emulators for Linux currently(depending on your purposes).

Note that the topic is Mac Vs. Windows. I am not defending windows here, It has PLENTY of problems, but while a user has to do all these things you talk about, they are EASY(at least from my point of view) for a user to do, provided they realize they need to do them(one of the big problems with windows). However, NONE of these things you mentioned as being a problem with windows is a problem with the Mac. Which is why I like the Mac.On another note, while you are correct that running all those updates as a 'cron job'(ok, this is an example. Why Cron? Why not a 'task scheduler job' or something equally intuitive.), will slow your computer while they are happening, why not run them in the middle of the night(like I do on my windows box that I use for gaming). That being said, once again, I won't defend windows much. The fact that they STILL haven't put in a filesystem that doesn't need constant defragmenting blows my mind. Or at least, they haven't set up the OS to defragment with whatever spare time you give it, or ANYTHING so that the user doesn't have to futz with it. Really, All I ask of linux is that the linux 'community' do some work on the ergonomics/HCI/human factors set of stuff. Its really not that hard to fix the stuff,(though it would take work), and I would even be willing to help(in any way that I can given that I am not a programmer) to make this happen(which, considering that my training is IN human factors, I could do). Its stuff like 'cron jobs', weird driver installations(no matter why they are weird, the user shouldn't have to deal with them), outright BAD installers(though they ARE getting better, I will give them some credit), naming conventions like usr as opposed to User, and so on that help 'normal human readability'(or at least setting things up so that the typical user will never need to see anything. /usr is actually one of the better ones, its easier to guess what it does than /etc, which could mean just about anything to most users, or nothing at all. KDE and Gnome, from what I have used of them, aren't particularly bad, but at least in the case of KDE(I haven't dealt enough with Gnome to really comment on it) in a lot of ways it clones the UI of windows, which therefore means that it has many of the HCI pitfalls of windows, but then it breaks that methodology in some strange ways that are rather non-intuitive(like the button at the top that compresses the window into just a bar). Coming from windows, I have no clue why anyone would do that(I do hope there is a good reason), but it feels just wrong from what I am used to. Granted, its what *I* am used to, but thats the same as most new users, so its an issue, not a huge one, but an issue. None of these things, by themselves, is something that breaks the bank. But all of them together creates a barrier to new users(ESPECIALLY non-technical users who would benefit most from a lot of linux's features like the lack of viruses and such).I would love to see windows die, but these things need to be dealt with before it will happen.

In which case Linux, in my mind, still loses out. As a user, if I have something that is a driver, then it should work. Granted, windows doesn't always do this well either, but then again I never claimed that windows was that great. Still, the real ideal is that I plug something in and it works. Thats an ideal, but I shouldn't, as a user, have to mess with drivers unless there is a good reason to(like doing custom driver edits or something similar).

ok. As far as I am aware the big bang theory is the best we have for the origins of the universe. According to one of my physicist/math friends, it is possible that if conditions are right you could have big bangs creating other big bangs, or even a cycle of big bangs that go in a circular fashion. Depending on how you want to describe time, then it can move in a circle, but at that point its just guesses about the nature of reality. The big bang is a usefull theory, and has some evidence(or so I understand) but its still far from concrete.

This driver was from the MANUFACTURER. It is possible that it still wouldn't work, but if you read my post, there was a different problem long before that came up. Specifically, that the driver required multiple steps to install, and executing those steps was non-intuitive and buggy.

Right, YOU can install linux in 15 minutes. The 'typical user' will not. And getting everything to work correctly, especially if there are any snags, (for instance the Issue I had where I had a driver but couldn't get it to install for no good reason) then the time goes up for those people dramatically. In terms of being a powerful tool, thats usefull and all, but frankly, none of that stuff matters to me. On a day to day basis, I need email, webbrowsing, office utilities, and the ability to play music. I need that all to work, and I need for my computer to give me zero crap about it. It needs to not crash, be easy to use, and in general never make me care about the computer. If I spend any of my time messing with the computer, I don't spend that time getting whatever it that I am trying to get done, done. Some people, probably you included, see messing with and learning about computers as an end in itself. Which is fine, but others(like myself) do not, or only want to have to do this when we feel like it. My exerience with linux is that it very quickly gets in my way when trying to get work done, and that even when I am willing to sit down for a bit and try figuring things out, the documentation is sparse or just outright terrible, and it turns into layers of frustration.

and macs have Bochs for emulating x86