Blender has texture display in the viewport.
N-sided polygon support will be there in 2.62
61 karma · joined February 24, 2008
N-sided polygon support will be there in 2.62
There is no theft, just voluntary trade. He exchanges his time and effort for a pay check and then blames his employer for the deal he accepted.
> This is nonsense since conceptual products are innovative by definition.
but they're not real products. The product of a company like microsoft is the products they produce and sell.
I don't doubt you are an intelligent person, but it's not showing. I hope you consider it as a possible description and not an insult.
Let's go by parts:
> No, it's fully earned
it is objectively unearned. To earn the complaint of "moralizing about every single aspect" I need first to moralize about every single aspect. I moralized about one aspect.
> I have witnessed first hand the moralizing, judgement and mutually contradictory universal expectations that random people have about how childrearing should be done.
From me? please justify.
> Reframing the debate in terms so negative that anyone would appear insane to disagree with them is classic political correctness.
Please justify how is it that hitting causing pain is not using hitting and pain to shape children.
> Which raises the question, is your duty as a parent to prevent any and all psychological damage to your child?
you changed the subject from causing pain as a value in parenting to preventing psychological damage.
> If the goal is to minimize suffering, then is it better to indulge your child and raise an entitled spoiled individual that will never be satisfied for the rest of their life.
What? you are so far from being able to think about this subject.
> Or is it better to "use fear" (the fear of consequences, whatever they may be) to raise a child that has some notion of negative cause and effect?
I'm done. You could tell yourself I'm quitting because I don't have an answer. I just realize this subject turns brains off for very good reasons.
He doesn't have to. It's not an requirement of life that he does. He's just submissive towards you.
I don't see why should it be a requirement. If he does, then why are they still a requirement? If he doesn't, why is it a good thing for him to comply? Why is he afraid? why is he submissive?
I understand you are not going to accept reality here. I know you have rationalizations to justify causing fear and pain in your "parenting". I understand it seem reasonable to you and that's not going to change. I quit.
Well, you are trying to add unearned emphasis with "every single aspect". It's not about "every single aspect", although it is moralizing about compulsion and pain.
> For the record, spanking is not necessarily abuse.
depends of the definition.
> For you to cite unequivocably that it is is pure unthinking political correctness.
You don't know how much though I have put into the subject and calling it political correctness is incorrect unless careing about whether or not people use pain and fear to shape children is just political correctness.
> Parenting is complicated, psychology is complicated
...
> Is everyone who was born before 1950 irretrievably fucked up?
I don't know if "irretrievably", but I think almost everyone is psychologically damaged in some way or another.
I don't to see how is this an argument. I'm not objecting the notion that people can learn to avoid what causes pain.
How is it that what you wrote makes sense and supports your case? (that controlling children through pain is good parenting).
> There is a difference between corporal punishment/discipline and abuse.
You are right. Abuse is just abuse, and corporal punishment is abuse with the propose of shaping someone's behaviour. There is a difference.
I would agree that someone who does "corporal punishment" can have good intentions.
I'm sorry you where abused.
I don't understand. Could you give concrete examples of "hacking a computer" that could be fun and useful for a great variety of smart people?
That's just a contradiction, not hypocrisy.
Why?
I'd listen.
Wow! Which brand and model?
Maybe an employee developed it in his 20% of time and they put it up because "why not?".
Why do you need to teach them that? life does that when you pursue something you are interested in. Whenever I want to achieve something there are things I don't want to do that are necessary to do what I want.
Not really. If you increase the requirements for entering a profession and limit the supply then you can increase you earning potential by a lot. That trick is highly rational and it works great, just not for you. Because it's not meant to work for you. Monopolies are not put in place for your benefit.
> There's simply too much money in it and people go crazy.
I think the violent regulation is more of a problem than that.
I'd like to read about that. Do you have any links?
> Lets say we want quality control in dentistry. You like the government quality control the government gives and would like your dentists to count with their approval. I, on the other hand, think it's requirements are excessive. Most of what my dentist does is find black spots in my teeth, drill them out, and then fill the hole. This does not require 4 years of study. If I ever get to need a root canal I would need someone with more studies but until then I'd me happy with someone with less studies, maybe a certification given by the manufacturer of the equipment, I don't know.
If you like the government certification you can limit yourself only to government certificated doctors. No problem. A group of people should be able do give public approval of university courses and degrees. If you like the government that OK.
I'm just object locking people in cages when they don't comply with these regulations. The violent monopoly is the problem.
> But the article is dead wrong in concluding that we're better off removing all licensing requirements.
The key word here is requirements. Not removing all licensing. The distinction is not expressed clearly. If you don't comply with the "required" licensing they lock you in jail, or the demand money from you, and if you don't comply, then you go to jail.
I have no problem with speed limits or licensing of doctors. If you want a group of people to dictate how does someone qualifies to be a doctor that's fine by me. When one does that in specific situations it's necessary that everybody follows the same rules, like in your example of the speed limit. I find no problem with that too.
A group of people should be able to determine rules for their property, the problem is when you start forcing others to do the same. This could be confusing in cases when compliance from everyone is needed like with speed limits, so I'll take my time explaining it.
Lets say we want quality control in dentistry. You like the government quality control the government gives and would like your dentists to count with their approval. I, on the other hand, think it's requirements are excessive. Most of what my dentist does is find black spots in my teeth, drill them out, and then fill the hole. This does not require 4 years of study. If I ever get to need a root canal I would need someone with more studies but until then I'd me happy with someone with less studies, maybe a certification given by the manufacturer of the equipment, I don't know.
This requirement drains the wallets of the poor. It's fine if you want to comply with the state regulation but I don't see the need for imposing it on everyone else.
There are different cases, like with speed limits, where everyone needs to comply for you to benefit from the regulation.
the Canandian Hockey federation used to lack reglamentation concerning helmets. Players would have benefited from using helmets but didn't because if someone didn't use one they had an advantage over the others. So the federation started demanding helmets and everyone benefited.
This is different than speed limits. If it where like speed limits the hockey federation would have made illegal all over Canada to play without helmets. It would be illegal to start a hockey federation without that rule and it would land you in jail to do so. There would be violence involved. Instead in the voluntary system you can participate in games without helmets just next to one with helmets and nobody will throw you in jail.
In the speed limits scenario I think you should be able to drive any street you want, but you can't force me to build one with the regulation you want. If I build a street, and someone wants to use it then it's their call.
If I want to go to a dentist or doctor without governmental accreditation that's my choice, and I wouldn't like to be imprisoned or fined (which without compliance ends in imprisonment) because of it.
I understand it sound chaotic if you are not familiar with the ideas. I don't know if this is the medium to discuss this.
Would you be concerned about the quality of the doctor?
Would you be the only one to feel that way?
Would a hospital who is capable of addressing those concerns be more successful than one incapable of doing so?
Would you as a training doctor be concerned of the public prestige of your license?
Would you as a doctor be willing to work in a place who hasn't justified or proved its quality to the public?
of course these questions don't answer your main concern, but you post assumes in the absence of a government monopoly in licensing, people would be incapable of creating quality control.
There's a tendency to imagine a transition period and think it would be unsolvable because you can't think how it could be solved.
If someone wants to give flower licenses that's fine. The problem starts when they start to claim the right to take your business from you if you don't have it. Or give you a fine. Or lock you in a cage if you don't pay the fine.
Of course the issue is more complex in cases of life and death, or just injury. My point is that it's necessary to consider what does a licensing monopoly entail. It entrails a group of people claiming the right to administer punishment backed by violence.
I know there are a lot of good objections to what I wrote, so many I can't address them all. I wanted it to point out the monopolistic and violent nature of government enforced licensing, not because it closes the issue, but because it's essential to understand this when speaking about the issue and contrasting that with voluntary, non coercive forms of licensing and quality control.