bobbin's comments

Blender has texture display in the viewport.

N-sided polygon support will be there in 2.62

> I came to a conclusion that for me was fundamental: My employwers are stealing my life.

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.

>> A commercial company’s ability to innovate is inversely proportional to its proclivity to publicly release conceptual products.

> 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.

> No, it's fully earned. I am a parent. I have witnessed first hand the moralizing, judgement and mutually contradictory universal expectations that random people have about how childrearing should be done.

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.

> I also don't spank my teen-aged son, but he has had to do his fair share of push-ups while listening to me explain to him the error of his ways.

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.

> This societal moralizing about every single aspect of how one should raise their children is a big part of the problem described in the article.

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.

> Yes, because nature doesn't use pain to teach us ever. That's why I can leave my hand on a hot stove until it turns black.

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 don't think using pain to control a child's behaviour is good parenting.

I'm sorry you where abused.

why would a medium that requires concentration like video games have a detrimental affect on attention span?

> Hacking a computer could be both fun and useful for a great variety of smart people.

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?

> And what about the hypocrisy of "don't have kids" combined with his "support my growing family" footer?

That's just a contradiction, not hypocrisy.

> It's bad UX in general

Why?

> I'd be crazy to take on this article

I'd listen.

> I am typing this on a Y30,000 keyboard

Wow! Which brand and model?

> I mean, Google MUST have lost some revenue.

Maybe an employee developed it in his 20% of time and they put it up because "why not?".

until the debt get too high...

Straw-man.

And it only uses 61% of both my 3.0GHz cores.

> It's important to teach your children that there are times when they need to focus on things that don't necessarily interest them

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.

> There's really something wrong with our system. It's completely irrational.

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.