venomai

What version do you have there? It should work on 1.5 -- but I might have the next release moved down to work on 1.4.2 also. Third year beginner's programming, although nearly everything I know was self-taught (the teacher knows very little). I only stay in the class for the easy marks and the steady stream of good assignment ideas that keep me practicing. :)

Do you think i decided to be bisexual? No I didn't... What I suspect (s)he means is that bisexuals have the choice between males or females. Although it's not exactly as easy as "Which do I feel like today?", and also a lot of bisexuals have a tendency to prefer one sex over the other.

Why so many gays wish to be married by the same church that condemns them to hell is beyond me... :x

raven_gaurd0, after all your bashing of gays, I find it ironic that one of your sources is a gay man -- the very thing you seemed to disrespect. :) Is this really one of your credible sources? Does this one unknown and unreliable gay poster mean it's true in all cases? The poster writes as if he speaks for all gays -- yet this is not true. I'll retaliate with another unreliable and uncredible poster to match your own. This is just another opinion, but it was an interesting read nevertheless. http://forums.hotgaylist.com/index.php? ... d&pid=1633 (edit: warning, the forum probably contains lots of porn spam)

Cool thread. Here are a few I wonder about... What would have happen if... ... George Bush lost the election? ... early studies on marijuana, psilocybin and LSD were actually factual and not just propaganda? I suspect most psychedelics would be legal today, if not freely advertised. ... Jesus was never born? Would something or someone take his place? ... schools focused more on artistics and right-brained aspects rather than purely left-brained acedemic? ... the Beatles never existed? :P

True. Parents should encourage their children to abide by the law, yes, but in most cases it would be futile to try and stop them from drinking at all before the (ridiculously high) drinking age. Do you have any idea how many students have gotten drunk by the time they turn 21, even with the strict laws and no-tolerance rules that so many parents live by? There's something you don't know about, then. If you think responsible drinking of alcohol makes you do idiotic things, you are mistaken. When the person begins to drink so heavily that it becomes detrimental to their health or well-being, then there is reason to be concerned, but light to moderate drinking does not make you act idiotic and is relatively low in harm. What I don't understand is why so many parents strictly enforce "no drinking" right up until the age of 21, and then the day their kid turns of age they stop caring and claim "it's their choice now". This ends up being extremely detrimental, as the kids haven't become accustomed to responsible alcohol use and often drink to the point of it being dangerous to themselves/others. However, if by idiotic things you are referring to impaired driving, then yes -- that is pure stupidity (and doesn't have much to do with the drug). Somebody who is irresponsible enough to drive impaired does not need alcohol to make them do stupid things. As for coffee, it's shown to be extremely addicting and high doses can get you impaired. It has a lot of withdrawal symptoms and it's known to cause psychological issues such as substance-induced psychosis. It would be silly to say that we should turn a blind eye to caffeine use simply because it is a legal commodity. If drug laws were actually based on harm, addiction and "doing idiotic things" then alcohol would be one of the top contender's for illegal drugs. http://caffeineweb.com/ In answering your question: because it's private and because it does not severely harm yourself/others. As I've said -- if you are doing something wreckless that endangers yourself or others then the parent should definitely be interrupting. But if I'm having a few beers or smoking a joint I see no reason that a parent needs to know. Likewise, if I choose to enter an altered state of mind through responsible use of caffeine, meditation, IDoser, etc. then there is no need to alert my parents. What I do with my own life, granted it is not very harmful to myself or others, is none of my parents' business. Thankfully, my parents give me the space I need -- that is one of the reasons why I tend to be so much more responsible in using drugs when compared to many of my friends. I feel no need to rebel against my parents as they treat me fairly and with respect. When parents try too hard to force their children to stop drinking, it often results in issues. A lot of teens use alcohol and drugs to get away from the strict rule they must live in under their parents' house. As for it being illegal, that is a perfectly valid argument. I wouldn't want my kids getting caught using drugs/alcohol because of the legal impact. But if I try to force them to stop drinking through strict rules and private investigations then it will only end up making matters worse, and it's likely that the child will drink/smoke more to rebel. If my child is doing something heavily illegal -- such as trafficking, growing or fraud -- then I would surely like to know. But those infractions are vastly different from having a few beers at a party or smoking a marijuana joint. (Note: I do not drink with the goal of getting "plastered" as many of my peers do. I spent two months in Europe and I've acquired a fine taste for dark beers -- plus I enjoy the buzz it gives) I'd love to see you enforce that on your kids. :lol: And what exactly do you mean by "any drug"? What about medical drugs (think Advil) or legal drugs like caffeine? Or maybe you only mean illicit drugs? In that case, what about other drugs like salvia d, mescaline, DXM, etc? These are hallucinogens that can be found in legal commodities (such as cough syrup or in herbal remedy stores). If my kid really had to do drugs, I would much rather him do well-studied drugs (such as LSD or cannabis) that have proven to be much safer and less addicting than many "mysterious" and potentially dangerous alternatives.

Quite frankly, I wouldn't want to be friends with anyone who blamed me for something my Mom did anyway. I wouldn't either, but most friends wouldn't blame you -- they would blame your mom. But that's the thing -- it's YOUR mom -- you would end up taking most of the damage (not just from your friends). If it was public as to who's mom it was, then there's a good chance that the student would get bullied, beat up, teased and ostracized. There's a good chance that people wouldn't invite her to large parties out of fear of another issue arising. Hell, I would go as far as saying that single event could traumatize her entire high school life, depending on the person and school. Sure, her small group of friends would support her, but what does that matter when the rest of your school avoids you and bullies you? If you still want to call somebody stupid, call the mother stupid for making such a poor decision. She shouldn't have been on her daughter's private profile in the first place, and even if she did see those pictures it is not her duty to notify every parent in the school about a few beers or joints. Will people stop blaming the students for "posting pictures of themselves" when clearly it is not their own fault if hundreds of others post pictures of them without consent. And what is this general assumption that anything posted to Facebook gets immediately uploaded to parents and teachers? I've rarely ever heard of this happening, and there are a lot of Facebook users in my area. That isn't to say it doesn't happen, of course, but you and others seem to be exaggerating the truth when you say that "everyone" can see these "public" pictures. What does driving to school drunk have to do with a picture of somebody drinking at a party? If a person is driving drunk on a school day then they have some serious issues. Marijuana. Tobacco. Shrooms. Any soft and/or legal drug. Hard drugs are very difficult, most responsible kids wouldn't want to do them anyways. Most would agree that it's a lot easier to get marijuana at a young age than alcohol or tobacco. Quite a few. No doubt, the ridiculously strict drinking and smoking laws in the U.S., which rarely ever prevents teen drinking/smoking, only end up showing youth that the law is perhaps not exactly something to take very seriously.

But the pictures had to have been taken with the person's consent (unless for some reason the person was tied down and unwillingly had their picture taken, which I doubt). And if someone takes your picture, I think it's pretty obvious that the pictures are going to be uploaded onto a computer (which anyone can really have access to, whether it's a parent or sibling) and posted somewhere. That's what high school students do. Two scenarios: 1. You are at a big party and you happen to be in pictures that you weren't aware people were taking. This happens a lot. 2. A close friend of yours takes a picture to capture the moment. There's a good chance that they will put it on their personal profile. There's obviously a risk of unwanted sources seeing it, but it's not much different from having it in a hardcopy album that my friends (and perhaps others) can easily access. In either case, it's difficult to request that every picture of yourself doing illegal activities be taken down on Facebook. For one, you will end up looking like a jerk after hassling people weekly to remove pictures, and also, it won't do much. Since you have no control over the pictures, and since some of them are seen the moment they are uploaded, it's a pretty futile attempt. I don't see how the above makes me or any other student "stupid". I would love to have an honest discussion about underage use of drugs and alcohol with teachers and parents. I think most of the problem is parents -- schools tend to do what the parents want most. If the parents want all underage drinkers to be suspended (even if it means their own children) then they will, because in their twisted minds they believe it will somehow prevent horrible things like death and addiction (although it often shows to only make matters worse). To what extent do parents need to know? To what extent should parents be allowed to interrupt their children's private lives? What about other drugs? If a child drinks caffeine weekly, would you go out of your way to notify the parents? What about sex? If a child has sex with their girlfriend on Tuesday, should the parents be notified? Is it any of their business? I think it's great that parents are concerned, but there is a fine line between being concerned and over-reacting. When their child has a cup of coffee -- note that caffeine is a very ADDICTING and potentially harmful MIND ALTERING DRUG -- the parents do not need to freak out. When their child has a few beers or has safe sex with their partners there is no need to interrupt them enjoying their lives. When a habit becomes an issue, one that gets in the way of health, jobs, school or social life, then the parents should definitely become involved. But a few beers and a bit of marijuana is none of their business.

See my reply above. Also, Facebook isn't exactly a site that "anyone" can access. Most people tend to restrict their profiles to friends only. I think the truly "stupid" people are those that give their passwords to parents knowing that their parents are against alcohol/drug use (although I'm sure many parents force it out of their kids or get in without them knowing).

I wouldn't call that stupid. Most of those pictures get put up without the other person's consent. I drink and smoke marijuana illegally and I suspect there are Facebook pictures of me doing both (pictures I did not put up and that I have no power to remove). If that happened here, I would have joined the protest. Everyone should be entitled to their own opinions, granted it's done in a peaceful manner. I see a real cause for concern when the school begins to investigate into our private lives. Thankfully, my school is pretty calm about all this. :)

Another mind-boggler: How would our own thoughts be organized without our knowledge of the spoken language? It's interesting to wonder about how a non-verbal form of thought may work. :)

What the HELL does that have to do with a black man's intelligence quotient?

Code updates. Added first revisions.. So far it only includes the core API. From here it shouldn't be too difficult to build up a Swing application. http://picto.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/Picto/

My point is, caffeine and heroin are both DRUGS, but to call them equal or even put them in the same category would be ridiculous. Gay rights movement and polygamous rights movement are both a form of free right movements, but, like with caffeine and heroin, it would be ludicrous to consider them equal or interchangeable. This is getting nowhere. :wall: Marriage is not at all needed for human/animal survival. Are you suggesting we should only live with what is needed? What about government, laws, caffeine, video games, chairs, marriage, clothing, internet, language, showers... These are all unneeded for human/animal survival yet many of them are things we enjoy and even find benefitial. Humans live in a world with much that is not needed but still desired. You can't be serious... :roll:

When did I say that? :-k How can you replace gay rights with polygamous rights and have the same situation? Huh? :-s The side effects are nowhere near the same -- just like polygamous and gay rights movements are nowhere near the same. Caffeine and heroin are both addicting -- does that mean we should lump them both into the same legal and social "acceptance" categories? Should a caffeine user be as "bad" as a heroin user solely because potential for addiction exists in both drugs? What I'm saying is that you can't put all of these concepts into the same category solely because of a few similarities. In this case, you can't put gay rights into the same category as polygamous rights just because the concept of love and relationship exists in both gay/polygamous movements. Rights movements have specified roles and can be "all universally changed". (same goes for drugs, of course, but that isn't the subject of this discussion)

A few similarities isn't enough to give the two equal standing. A lot of rights (women's, black, divorce, abortion, etc) concern relationships and love, to consider them all on equal ground because of those two similarities would be ridiculous. You say polygamy is about love but arranged marriages are not, yet you call them equal? :roll: You're comparing apples and oranges here, and you're dead wrong in considering them equal. What the hell are you going on about? If we allowed "all rights" in our society, then people would have the right to kill, rape, abuse, enslave, discriminate, etc. For example, I'll use a drug analogy. Caffeine is a recreational drug that is legally and socially allowed in the West. Because caffeine is allowed, should we also allow heroin, cocaine, ketamine, speed, etc.? And vice versa? Heroin is not allowed -- does that mean caffeine should not be allowed? Does that mean that morphine, Advil, and other "medical" drugs should also not be allowed because heroin is not? There are a variety of valid arguments as to why drugs should be allowed or not, but using the argument that "One is allowed, so all others should be too" is a moot point and will get you nowhere. Same goes for people's rights. They are all different, and each must be accepted individually. We cannot simply accept all rights blindly and hope for the best.

I don't follow religion -- does that mean my only purpose in life is to reproduce? :lol: What about heterosexuals who choose not to reproduce? Even though they are equally as counterproductive to 2 billion years of nature, nobody seems to mind. Homophobia is a lot more detrimental to our society than homosexuality. Sexual orientation is not a choice. Think of skin colour. Do blacks choose to be born black? Wouldn't it be ironic if bisexuality is the next turning point in human evolution? :P

Gay rights argue to treat homosexual/bisexual relationships just as well as the way the West treats heterosexual relationships. Polygamous rights are completely different and to use them as an argument would be equally as useless as, say, attempting to compare gay rights to drug-use rights. You can't simply assume that because gay rights is fine all other right activists must also be fine. Anyways, how does polygamy harm society or people any more than monogamy? A poor relationship (with jealousy, fighting, etc) can be harmful but that occurs in both poly and monogamous marriages. PS: I support polygamous rights and drug-use rights, but I highly doubt that the rest of Western society is ready to accept either (yet). Let's try and take things one step at a time... :)

Finished the file reading/writing system. :) Picto files are compressed into ZIP archives. All brushes, snapshots and layers are separate entries in the ZIP, along with the XML definition of the project. :) Instead of having the PNG data inside XML tags, I'm now using references to "link" to the images (this keeps the XML very clean). The code is very flexible and will allow each individual element (snapshots, brushes, brush packs, etc) to be saved/loaded. :)

According to the Bible - those who have never heard the Gospel are innocent from sin because of absence of understanding - therefore they will go to Heaven. And what of those who have heard the Gospel, yet choose not to follow it? Do they not deserve Heaven simply because they embrace another religion, perhaps a religion that they have lived their entire lives with? Well, as I've said, my beliefs tend to change often, and new experiences and sciences often leads me to question them. My belief in the afterlife isn't "set in stone" and I don't completely accept it -- right now it's more speculation than anything. However, in time, I hope to experience the non-physical world (while living) to explore the afterlife in detail. Of course, it would be difficult to experience the afterlife without dying. A more suitable term would be otherlife, as I see it; the non-physical environment that energy exists in. This all started a couple months ago. Before then, I was quite sure that there was no such thing as the afterlife or a non-physical world. I've since become more open to the idea of the non-physical world, and perhaps even afterlife. This happened when I began reading about out of body experiences (OBE) and astral projection. I heard a lot about it on psychedelic drug and IDoser forums, so naturally I assumed that it was an experience created entirely by the mind's imagination. When I read further into self-induced OBEs, I realized that perhaps there is more to it than pure imagination. I got the book Adventures Beyond the Body by William Buhlman for a little more information on the subject, and it turned out to be a very interesting read. I don't agree completely with Buhlman, but he backs up his arguments with a lot of convincing evidence (much of it from Einstein and others) and many of his explanations seem very logical. Since then, I've been trying to experience the non-physical world on my own to see if his arguments hold true. I haven't had an OBE yet but I suspect I will in time. :) Here's an online book about OBEs... it's not the best and I'm skeptical about a lot of the stuff he writes, but it's a good read nevertheless. http://www.robertpeterson.org/obebook.html

But would you sacrifice your self for someone? A friend, family member, or stranger? And if you did wouldn't you feel that you were entitled to endure it? Wouldn't it be your privilege as a person of society to sacrifice yourself for someone else? Sorry, to clarify I meant suffering of innocents brought on by an external and unwanted source. :) PS: Hey, you never answered my question about that baker comment... :P

Not speaking for Ven of course, but I hold that philosophy and I find it to be a much more useful way to look at life than focusing on trying to comprehend something incomprehensible, like gods or the afterlife. It's nowhere near a 'problem'; it's simply a different outlook on life than your own. Though, I may simply just be having trouble understanding you. Why would you label such a mindset "a problem"? I don't intend to argue, only to attempt to demonstrate the Christian perspective on this and why in some sence it is a problem for you if you are not correct... If it is the case that there is a God... and it is the case that the Bible is an accurate rendition of God's general will for how HIS world should run and HIS creatures should behave... then it is the case that there is a real place that is Heaven (that is the presence of God) and a real place that is Hell (that is the absence of God), and it is also the case that every human being on the planet is going to either one or else the other. If Heaven and Hell are real and everybody is going one way or the other and you don't know it then I ought to do everything in my power to show you so that you don't unintentionally go somewhere you do not want to go. As a Christian who believes the Bible, Unorclan can not help but try to warn people off from a dangerious path any more then I, as a good Samaritan could not in good concience do anything but warn people that the bridge was out and they would probably be destroyed if they continued along that road they were on. I think it's time I explain my own belief (which changes pretty often, I'll admit). Personally, I feel that there is only one afterlife. Let us call it Nirvana for lack of a better term. It is a series of non-physical dimensions of conscious thought energy. I believe that every individual will go to this afterlife, regardless of their religion or what they have done with their life. To some, like you, it will be seen as a form of Heaven. Others, perhaps those who are only left with their own guilt, will see it as a form of Hell. Others will see it as Muslim Paradise, while others still will see it as the Buddhist Afterlife. In all cases, each individual is in a way correct, as the the environment will take shape based on the individual's expectations. Only those who have previously explored this non-physical dimension will understand its true nature (and in this case "understand" is a relative term). I am going to the afterlife regardless of Christianity. I appreciate your concern, though. :)

Maybe he already does, but because he doesn't make it obvious to us we simply ask for more? Good point. :) I guess we'll never know for sure. Then perhaps you should stop using the term "free will" in this context. :-k The way "I describe it" is the way the English language describes it. If you mean something other than free will, then don't use those words... God does not give a evil man riches, he does not give the good man riches - physical needs are taken care of by Him, but other than that man gains the rest as God allows. Those who die in innocence will be glad they did as the are welcomed into Heaven. Physical needs? What about food and water? And what about those innocents who have not been baptized? God loves them, yet he does not welcome them to Heaven? Actually, I do believe in the afterlife and non-physical dimensions, and when my time comes I will be ready to enter it (with or without Christianity). :) I focus on the physical suffering because I don't think anyone should be entitled to endure it.

Also, the file format will look something like this: <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> isSmudge="true" opacity="0.25" diameter="10"> ... ... ... ... ... ...

Hey folks, I'm still here and I've recently been thinking about the new design for Picto. As I've said, it will be a lightweight program intended purely for digital painting. It will be aimed at beginners and mainly for use in communities (like TIF and RSC graphic communities). Here is the project page which will be the main host for Picto: http://code.google.com/p/picto/ Here's a quick summary of how I'm going to design the next release. Planned Features: - very lightweight and cross-platform - comes in applet and application form (can be a downloadable as well) - pressure sensitivity support for tablets in Linux and Windows (can be turned off; Mac will come later) - eyedropper tool (hotkey ALT like in Photoshop) - use up to 5 custom brush tools, each with: - name - texture (soft, spatter, regular, etc) - smudge (on/off) - opacity - size - an eraser tool (same as brush but clears the area) - use up to 5 layers, each with: - name - visibility (show/hide) - opacity - up to 10 "snapshots" of the progress can be taken for later review (usually 25% size) - snapshots, layers and brush settings can be saved in the Picto file format - up to 50 history states undo/redo - (hopefully) support for zoom, copy/paste, transforming individual layers, different document sizes I'm thinking of using SwingX to get a nice background blur feature for dialogs: http://www.curious-creature.org/2007/08 ... over-2007/ Also, I was planning on having an "Export Snapshots" feature that would automatically pack any saved progress like so: (just a quick example) What Features will NOT be in Picto? - No shape tools (eg: rectangle/ellipse) - No dashed brush tool - No paths/vector tools