In reply to this comment by mentality:
Haha no. The goal of an animation is primarily to produce the visual effect. Hence, why James Cameron will use CGI to animate all the passengers on the Titanic, and not actually hire thousands of extras to do it. With his $200 Million + budget, you know Cameron could have hired the extras if he wanted to. Would you call James Cameron a pointless masturbator? Lol of course not.

Pointless masturbation was your expression. I'm not against CGI in general, I'm just saying in this particular video, using CGI would make a completely unremarkable video, while using Lego blocks made a unique and awesome video.

The whole point of sports in the Olympics is to go faster, better, strong, using human power. The point of an animation is to produce the desired visual effect. Unless the animators specficially set out to break the record for longest stop motion lego video (they did not state that this was their goal), then you cannot possibly compare the two.

I can and have. I say that to me it doesn't matter if any records were broken in the production of the video, since that's not how I measure if the video is good or not. You keep hanging on to the tiny technicalities and thus miss the entire point of what I'm trying to say.

Again, you are avoiding my criticism, by ignoring my question: how would using a car produce the same effect of letting Bolt compete in events and continue his career?

For the last time. The car analogy was simply to illustrate how using a shortcut would invalidate the entire endeavor.

Haha no, the sift is a mob that votes for what it likes. You don't call Digg the regulatory body of the internet, do you? The sift does not care if the animators used non-regulation blocks, or if the animators had assistance while filming, or if they used CG to spice up the effects. Compare that to olympic sprinting, where 0.01 seconds off can be a false start, an extra 0.5 mph wind can invalidate your record, where stepping on a line by half an inch can ruin years of training. That just shows how inappropirate your analogy is.

The sift may not care about regulation blocks, or other made up rules that you use to define athletics for yourself, but there are rules to this here siftage. While I don't consider myself a part of the Digg community, and thus don't care one bit what they vote up or down, I do consider myself myself to be a part of this community, and thus care about what gets sifted up or not.

>> ^ForgedReality:

Macs and Desktops using Windows are both PCs. MacOS is oversimplified (meaning it restricts user control far too much), but its UI is overcomplicated (meaning things that should be accomplished easier are made more complicated).


Say what? I generally use 4 different OSes daily, and have lots of experience with many of them (Daily: Mac OS X, Windows XP/Vista, BackTrack, and CentOS. Experience: Too many to name all, but basically all the BSDs, most of the Linuxes, Minix, AIX, basically every Mac and Windows OS version, you name it - just no OS/2.)

Mac OS pre-10 didn't give you enough control (unless you knew the tricks), but in Mac OS X, you have WAY more control than Windows. Too much if you ask me. But the Mac has ALWAYS had a very simple UI, that was the beauty of it. You could do just as much with less effort. A true productivity OS.


Things are a lot easier on Windows such as being able to click a drop down, and then move thru it via the arrow keys, which is very nice for Photoshop users in particular (arrowing through typefaces, layer blend modes, etc). So many things are made quicker via the keyboard, which Apple refuses to allow in its OS. Everything must be done with the mouse. Why? Okay, Windows has Windows+D, and MacOS has F11, but that's the extent of it pretty much. I can't tab through window elements on a Mac, I can't easily get to a console on a mac (Windows+R->cmd<enter>), I can't select a shortcut and then alt+enter it to get to its properties window on a Mac, etc.


I'll bet it's all down to experience. I've always complained to my Windows friends that I can't navigate Windows with the keyboard like I can on the Mac. I'm lightning fast navigating through Mac OS with the keyboard, but I can't do jack on Windows. Chalk it up to knowledge is my guess. As for Photoshop, I would guess that's Adobe's fault.

BTW, one click on a Mac to get console access, or >console in the login. CMD-I will get you to the properties window for any file. Any others you need help with?


And games? Fuggeddaboudit.


And here is my only reason for still having Windows machines AT ALL. If it weren't for the games, I wouldn't touch the OS with a 10 meter cattle prod.


Ubuntu is a far superior OS to both Windows and MacOS. This is fact, not opinion.
Even though MacOS is based on Unix, just like Ubuntu (Linux was derived from Unix), somehow Ubuntu does it much better.
The only reason I run Windows is because I can actually run my games on it. The SECOND Linux gets better support and can run games as well as XP, or at least approachably well, Ubuntu will become my main OS.


Any time someone tells you that something is a fact and not an opinion... well, I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this. I have used Ubuntu quite a bit, especially for my Netbooks. One I moved to Mac OS X, one runs various OSes installed to SD cards, such as BackTrack, and one went to Windows to support a crappy piece of hardware I have that is ONLY supported in Windows (don't get me started on hardware support). Ubuntu is okay for a consumer OS, but not great. Linux suffers from the 'too many cooks' issue, and Ubuntu does a pretty good job at mitigating that, but it's no Mac OS, where everything "just works".

>> ^ElJardinero:
Why do some pc users crap all over macs and then get super excited when microsoft copies features that have existed on macs for quite some time?


Macs and Desktops using Windows are both PCs. MacOS is oversimplified (meaning it restricts user control far too much), but its UI is overcomplicated (meaning things that should be accomplished easier are made more complicated). Things are a lot easier on Windows such as being able to click a drop down, and then move thru it via the arrow keys, which is very nice for Photoshop users in particular (arrowing through typefaces, layer blend modes, etc). So many things are made quicker via the keyboard, which Apple refuses to allow in its OS. Everything must be done with the mouse. Why? Okay, Windows has Windows+D, and MacOS has F11, but that's the extent of it pretty much. I can't tab through window elements on a Mac, I can't easily get to a console on a mac (Windows+R->cmd<enter>), I can't select a shortcut and then alt+enter it to get to its properties window on a Mac, etc. And games? Fuggeddaboudit.

Ubuntu is a far superior OS to both Windows and MacOS. This is fact, not opinion.

Even though MacOS is based on Unix, just like Ubuntu (Linux was derived from Unix), somehow Ubuntu does it much better.

The only reason I run Windows is because I can actually run my games on it. The SECOND Linux gets better support and can run games as well as XP, or at least approachably well, Ubuntu will become my main OS.

This is an interesting lead into where religion comes from; the ritual of finding the reward was repeated by the kids no matter if they saw the shortcut or not. The ritual became the important thing, not the reward necessarily. The chimps mostly just went straight for the candy once they realized they didn't need the extra steps.

God fucking dammit, are you serious? The poll is not a siftquisition, which we STILL HAVE btw, just not the shortcut in the side. If you want to have a siftquisiton, you just make it! It is then up to dag whether or not he wants to follow it - LIKE IT WAS BEFORE!

or you take a convenient shortcut and use cgi

If psychedelics are "shortcuts", so are hypnosis, lucid dreaming, and meditation, ...oh and fasting, and church services, oh and the wisdom of daily experience too!

Is there really and basis for assigning relative value to any of these forms of experience -- value that you think applies to other people?

Why do people form such strong opinions about things they don't understand?

Cops are needed. I know that. But you don't have to be fucking assholes all of the time to get the job done. That's where you fail.

There are good cops. I know that.

But there are fucking pricks in there who keep having excuses made for them, and that's not doing any of us any good.

Your "Show of Force" thing is true, but not in all cases, and I submit that many times it only undermines your authority. As I've said before, we have too many Rambos and not enough Andy Griffith's. We have too many guys with power fetishes who can't wait for an excuse to slap somebody around.

I was lying on a park bench one time and a cop rode his motorbike right up to my face. He didn't have to do that. He could have just said "Sir, that's not allowed here."

I've been stopped and interrogated for doing nothing more menacing than taking a shortcut down an alley on my way home from the pub.

One time in Denver, two cops stopped me and wanted to take me "down town" for a few hours, or a few days, because I was walking home near a place that was robbed. No other reason. No other evidence.

You know, you guys have just acted like assholes so many times that I'm as leery of you as I am of the hoods. And as often as not, you're worthless as hell. You get to the scene an hour after the fact. You file a report that will never be followed up on. You have this "Well what do you expect me to do about it?" attitude.

And I'm pretty mad at you for jumping to the defense of that cop in the video that you referenced.

A lot of you are pretty lazy and not very bright, and bullies at heart.

[edit]
Just an FYI, my brother wears a badge. I think he's probably really good at what he does, but I don't even know him any more. He's said and done things, grossly insensitive things, that really make it hard for me to be around him.

Such ridiculous nonsense. Yes, maybe we'll find "god" through science, but we certainly never will if we circumvent the entire discovery process by saying "God did it!" and then proceed to not explore anything further.

The answer of "god did it" is simply a shortcut answer for the inexplicable. It's not an explanation of how something was done.

If all these intelligent design proponents really do believe that some kind of higher form of intelligence was responsible for creating life - the question they should then be asking is HOW that higher form of intelligence was able to do it. They should be trying to understand the methods and prove that it was done. If they aren't trying to answer that question, then they aren't scientists at all.

And, also, any "scientist" who claims intelligent design is real and then adamantly claims that it's THEIR god who was the intelligent designer... They are festivaling themselves [Edit: I must have seen the word festival when I wrote that, meant to say festivaling... that was weird] [Edit: Actually, I think I just got Cheese firsted... festival == f00l?]. Crafting intricate apologies and explanations for their ancient superstitions... On the other hand, if someone says they think some kind of intelligence was responsible for creating life, but they aren't sure what... That's reasonable hypothesizing, I suppose, given that they are actually trying to figure out who/what that intelligence was and how it was able to create life.

I'm done ranting now.

>> ^WaterDweller:
I mush prefer the longer, safer route through meditation, hypnosis and lucid dreaming, rather than risky shortcuts like shrooms and stuff.


^ This is what I mean! You don't need drugs! Don't cheat!

>> ^GDGD:
One reason WHY you might only use your desktop every few days is because it does not offer more functionality.

Good point, but the kind of functionality I want is more integrative than segregative, if that makes sense. I don't WANT to have to return to my desktop in order to find or do something. This is why I use things like Ubiquity (Firefox) and Autohotkey. Sure, there are other ways to accomplish what these apps/plugins do, but it is more intuitive and useful to me to have a quick keyboard shortcut than it is to clunk my way through any desktop interface to what I need.

The desktop seems to be a bounding point more than anything else, and if I can make my bound happen faster, I'm all for it. Honestly, even though I store a few files here and there on my desktop, I'm much more inclined to use the desktop toolbar from my start menu rather than minimizing everything, finding what I want, and then maximizing everything again (and yes, I'm aware of Windows+D).

Things like AutoHotkey and Ubiquity are the kind of computing innovations that I feel are really useful, because they actually contribute to overall workflow. A desktop redesign just doesn't do much to actually help workflow unless you're the kind of person who really likes launching everything from the desktop, but always forgets where the launcher for a given app actually IS . (and yes, I realize that these people exist, so if this helps them, great...I just don't see BumpTop as a revolution in computing for the average user)

Am I the only one who uses keyboard shortcuts in preference to any other interface?

I work away furiously as a developer and systems admin all day and I rarely use the desktop in the way that it was intended.

If I need to launch an app, focus a window or chop some text then it's the keyboard I'm going to use. It's just so efficient.

I'm not suggesting this is for everyone... my boss doesn't get on with his keyboard too well, he much prefers his mouse. But for power users?

Another interface I really like is the Linux shell. Again not for all tasks, but for systems admin type work its super efficient and hugely powerful.

In summary, the desktop's just there to look pretty. That's why we have backgrounds. The real interface has always been the keyboard.

EDIT: Scrap that I've just watched the video for Microsoft Bob and it's the future!

While at the Sift Up, I learned the following:

Youdiejoe is an obsessive cameraman.

DarkRowan is clever -- he actually brought a flour sifter to the Sift Up.

Volumptuous has everything to do with volume, and nothing to do with ample, unrestrained pleasures.

DystopianFutureToday has a surprisingly optimistic outlook for the future tomorrow.

Lucky760 can hold a conversation at a urinal.

And Blankfist is most definitely a rapist. He knows all the shortcuts down dark alleys.

What I didn't learn at the Sift Up:

How IssyKitty, hbleusea and Charms were convinced to attend.

I just deleted the Internet Explorer Shortcut Icon from my desktop to exercise the rights awarded to me by the ultimate outcome of this case. You didn't used to be able to delete it. Thanks, DoJ!

Surprisingly stimulating to watch.

>> ^WaterDweller:
I mush prefer the longer, safer route through meditation, hypnosis and lucid dreaming, rather than risky shortcuts like shrooms and stuff.

I always enter the immortality cheat codes when I first buy a video game. I like to achieve lucidity and self-realization in the same instantly gratifying way.