I have always been a Paint Shop Pro fan, since the Jasc days, and lately I have been observing the shift towards becoming a Photoshop CS2 wannabe graphics software day-by-day. Luckily, my initial worries proved me wrong, as the new features introduced with the first version released under Corel, v10 wasn’t that bad at all. As a matter of fact, it had become even more useful for photo manipulators.

It has always been an easy-to-use program and that’s what has drawn the regular consumers out there to the software. Photoshop is an industry standard, well almost, but it’s not only expensive but also hard, very hard to use for a beginner. Even I had trouble picking some stuff up at first, having been so used to Paint Shop Pro for years (since v3 I believe). People expect to have easy features that can help them with basic tasks such as removing red eyes, bleaching teeth and removing stains from clothing.

I thought that v10 had already solved many of the basic needs of the software for it to become a mainstream photo-editing tool.

After I installed v11, which was a HUGE letdown due to the fact that almost EVERYTHING was working slow (even when I moved my mouse curser over a workframe of 300×300 px there was some choking going on), making me even revert back to v10 after a couple hours of usage, I was reluctant to download the trial version of x12 (more commonly referred to as Photo X2) at first.

At this very moment, I’m downloading the trial, before I pay a full $99 for the download version of the software (I can’t buy the upgrade, I believe, as I actually never purchased the version before. I have to check if upgrades can happen from v10 to v12, which I doubt).

I will let you guys know what I think about X2 after I test it out extensively.

This artist on DeviantART, nicknamed iDNAR, has a gallery full of such depictions of favorite anime characters. Fullmetal Alchemist, Bleach, you name it, key characters from all such popular anime being illustrated in a realistic style. Here are some examples:

My point is, one explored Seireitei together with the characters as they travelled through the lands. The relationship between Rukia and Ichigo was deeper and at least Rukia got more airtime. The story turned out to be revolving around her in the first place. It was fun overall, and the audience learned something new with every episode.

Now, they’re working more on the half-Hollow nature of Ichigo and, of course, the newly introduced Arrancar are getting the main spotlight. It’s still fun, but there seems to be a cycle Bleach is entering into, fast…

What I’m talking about is the introduction of bigger, stronger powers with each passing episode. I mean, the seal of reiatsu (spirit pressure in Bleach, I think spirit power is called reiorku instead) and such, and the never ending “I’m very powerful, bwu ha ha ha” type dialogue that is seriously littering the series is getting on my nerves.

And a king of Soul Society? I mean, a king? What’s next, God?

Until the whole deal with the Arrancar and the Vaizard will come to an end, or when Aizen actually ascends to the halls of the king through unlocking the gates, I’m depicting that we are going to see a lot more upgrades of power throughout the series.

For example, Kuchiki Rukia, who got beat-up by a hollow, gains enough strength the next episode to actually defeat an Arrancar, even though the defeated one is among the weakest. It’s just becoming nonsensical, without any proper explanation and logic to support it. I admit that her newly presented special power is quite cool, and she looks awesome while using her technique, but how can one explain the plothole here?

I’m fearing that this series is becoming more like Dragonball Z, with never-ending battle scenes that take on a couple of episodes and an ever-increasing level of power, without a limit.

I think the story writers are having trouble finding interesting stuff to introduce to the series nowadays, and have come to a halt. Sure, it follows the manga, but don’t forget that the Bount introduced in the fillers were not in the manga and their influence is still present in the “return to the manga storyline” episodes, which I like to call the second season. There is a certain independence from the manga with the second season.

I don’t complain of the overinflation of characters in the series. I actually like it, gives more variety and lots of twists to the series. I only fear that they will start to have trouble managing the characters as time passes.

Why not just reintroduce these characters, starting soon enough, so that the story writers don’t have to resort to the classic tactic of introducing new, but nonsensical powers to the Shinigami?

As I said, I fear that if this cycle continues, the series will become unwatchable without thinking “wow, it’s becoming Cartoon Network material by the day”.

I hope my fear doesn’t come true.

With the recent disasters, such as the fires that blazed through Greece in late August 2007, and the public’s concern over global warming, which is blamed for almost any disaster that happens nowadays, NewScientist magazine has decided to make a special story about it. With the logos depicting each major disaster and everything, it’s appealing to the eye as well as drawing attention.

But putting the headline of the story right beneath the question “If morality is hard-wired in the brain, what’s the point of religion?”, with the symbols of the major religions parallel to the symbols for the disasters, it’s just a bold, very bold move.

Well, anyone who has taken the time to read about me on my website, you would already know that I’m more of an agnostic than anything. That’s why I have been asking myself this question for years already, and haven’t really found a concrete answer yet.

Taken from the abstract present on the magazine’s website, NewScientist.com, which was titled “What good is God?”:

RELIGION occupies a strange position in the world today. Religious belief is as powerful as ever, yet religion is under attack, challenged by science and Enlightenment thought as never before. Critics like Richard Dawkins would have us believe that it is a delusion, and a dangerous one at that. He is one of many thinkers who are challenging the traditional view of religion as a source of morality. Instead, they argue that it provides a means for justifying immoral acts.

Their views have recently been bolstered by evidence that morality appears to be hard-wired into our brains. It seems we are born with a sense of right and wrong, and that no amount of religious indoctrination will change our most basic moral instincts.

It’s definitely an interesting discovery, but putting it together with the disaster story in the same issue, especialy showcasing them in the same style gives me the idea that the editors really want to prove something.

I’m against the preaching of atheism. I’m not religious and I don’t think I’d ever be able to follow the teachings of a religion due to the logical flaws with most religious practices (own opinion), but atheism isn’t a religion either and can’t be preached. At least, it shouldn’t be preached. It’s an oxymoron for an atheist to try spreading atheism I believe.

I call this aggressive atheism, although I don’t think NewScientist has yet crossed the line into becoming aggressive atheists. This article, however, is just obviously a message, just a single step away from starting to publicly bash religion to draw more people into atheism.

I believe that atheism should remain as a personal choice, otherwise it wouldn’t be any more different than a religion.

But today, I had to help a friend over the phone to fix his internet connection. Not only was it a pain to actualy go through the network properties, something that SHOULD have been made easier decades ago for the casual laptop user who has to travel between different networks (luckily completely freeware software like NetSetMan are lifesavers when it comes to that), but the wait was excrutiating.

I mean, how slow can an operating system be? My friend has one of the latest Dell models, can’t exactly recall what it is, and it comes with Vista.

I have once heard from a friend that before installing Vista, it’s safer to install Windows XP, install all the drivers and software, games and what not, then upgrade to Vista.

But I ask: why even bother? It’s unstable, slow and many of the usability that should have been fixed, changed and just redesigned all over still remain as they used to.

If you’re presented with the opportunity, seriously, don’t even bother, unless you get a new computer with Windows Vista preinstalled.

There is a saying, which goes something in the lines of “where one’s freedom begins, another one’s ends”.

The terms “freedom of speech” and “freedom of the press” need to be redefined. Can it cross the line towards what is considered as insult by many?

There is a thin line between criticism and insult, and it’s not so hard to cross it. However, anyone with enough experience would have the necessary initiative to decide upon what crosses the line. I see the latest attempt at caricaturizing Prophet Muhammed as a desperate attempt to get attention and increase paper sales. It is a planned attempt to get the attention of the world and the Swedish, Norwegian and Danish speaking people.

One can’t depict any individual in any sexual situation with someone else. It’s humiliating and one would end up with a heavy lawsuit in their hands. Racism would also be crossing the line, depicting a member of another culture as an animal generaly seen as ‘lowly’.

What is so different when the Holy Prophet of the Islamic religion, whose iconization has been banned by Sunni religious authorities (the ulama) in the 16th century?

What the Europeans don’t understand is that Islam is not just a religion, but a lifestyle. Whoever worships Allah and accepts Muhammed as his prophet don’t just simply have a connection to them as a Christian would have to Jesus. The philosophy of “what would Jesus do” has actually been conceptualized in what is called the sunna; one tries to literaly imitate the lifestyle of Muhammad for the ultimate service to Allah.

Iconography has been banned by Islam to prevent the worship of icons instead of the true worship to Allah that comes from the heart (niyyat, literaly meaning ‘intention’, but having a deeper meaning in the context of Islam). I understand that it might be considered freedom of speech by a non-Muslim to depict the prophet in a caricature. Of course, the appropriate way would be to veil the face or not draw facial details, or draw the figure from behind, which has been done quite often in Ottoman miniature art.

Depicting the Prophet as anything, especialy a terrorist, is the biggest insult one can make to the Muslim community, and it’s nothing close to “freedom of speech”.

Europeans, if they claim to be the cradle of civilization, should be more tolerant to the beliefs and values of others, and by others I don’t mean single individuals, but masses.

In my opinion, they got off easy.

I am not trying to insult anyone, or take anyone’s side by any means. The complete humane feelings I have towards the families of the deceased and the ones who have gone through such a traumatic event parallel my moderate sympathy to the mindset of the people who have abducted the victims in the first place.

In a realist point of view, it is a perfect case of “wrong time, wrong place“. No matter what the intention of such a group was, the kidnappers have interpreted it as a move with political roots towards destabilizing the society with religious divisions and pulling the already exhausted people of Afghanistan further away from the Taliban than the majority already are.

I can’t completely comment on whether the South Korean missionaries had a political agenda of such or not. With the fuel lines crossing through the land, anything can be expected from any type of operation in Afghanistan, whether it be military or missionary work.

A missionary is, simply put, an individual on a “mission” (L. mittere or missio, literally meaning “to send” or “to dispatch”). The interpretation of the term “mission” can vary from person to person. Any task with an objective is a mission, but not any person with a mission, or in a mission (as in diplomatic missions), is a missionary. Although it’s primarily used in a religious context, a propogandist can also be technically referred to as a missionary in its own political context. The term that connects both meanings would be “emissary”, in my opinion, including any individual dedicated to spread his/her cause among populations to which the cause has not yet been introduced.

I am not sure how aware of history the kidnappers are, but I, without a doubt, believe that their past experiences of relations with Western societies could have easily make it seem as a political plot to undermine the Muslim Afghan society by the kidnappers, as I mentioned before. Mind that I’m categorizing the Korean missionaries as Western for this particular case, as xenophobia rarely discriminates among the shunned and anything Christian for many such individuals is almost synonymous to the West.

Besides, there are countless examples of politically driven missionary work in the world.

Historicaly, missionary activities almost always had a political agenda, especially with Western societies. The crusades aimed to pull the Eastern Orthodox societies closer to the Vatican and, preferrably, to the Holy Roman Empire, which ended mostly in failure. Post-Cortes Americas witnessed religious competition among the Catholics and the Protestants with the arrival of the English colonists. Central Africa and the Sub-Saharan region still, to this day, witnesses a competition among Islamic and European missionaries, which has become more of a one-sided competition towards the end of the 19th century in the favor of the Christian missions.

Besides the bigger picture, what small-time missionaries don’t understand is the fact that everyone has their own “truths”. The small-time missionaries at hand, such as a volunteer college student, are driven by the lack of such a sense; Mormons, Jehova’s Witnesses, Evangelists, they all claim to be following the true way and try spreading their beliefs, to the degree that it becomes an insult to the one being preached at.

Let me tell you what I think these South Korean missionaries had in mind: “Afghanistan’s current technologicaly backward state and war-torn people are the result of Islam, and if we bring Christianity to these lands, they will thrive”.

How insulting is that? Not just to the average Afghani Taliban militant, but also any Muslim in the world. It is outrageously arrogant.

In the wake of a decade-long Taliban rule, Afghanistan is slowly recovering from the wounds of the Soviet war, which had never been patched to begin with, and is still battling the renegade Taliban who constantly hit the peace forces, even after the Taliban government has been disbanded.

A predominantly Muslim country with such a recent past, and a history of religious extremists ruling over it with a burning hatred towards Western civilization is not ready for such acts of self-proclaimed kindness, and will probably not be ready for another century. This just makes the claim of one of the survivors on how unexpected it was for them to be kidnapped ridiculous.

It is a self-proclaimed act of kindness, almost crossing into stupidity.

There is a saying in Turkish that goes like “selling snails in a Muslim neighborhood”. Now, don’t ask me why snails cannot be sold in a Muslim neighborhood, as I’ve never heard of anything related to snails in general Islamic practices, but the saying is usually used in such contexts where it is just inappropriate for an individual to do certain things in a given context, or even be present at certain locations due to the inappropriateness of the individual.

I won’t even go into how some missionaries pay the poor to convert, who happily accept the cash and whatever else they get and go back to their homes to resume practicing their old religions.

I have been trying to keep myself calm throughout this entry of mine, and I know that I have dwelved into quite a range of topics on missionary practices in general, but I have to mention one last point. These people should be awarded the Darwin Awards for their performance in trying to get themselves killed in the most ridiculous ways one can imagine.

Almost after every edit, as if it’s a given thing, some guy from a random IP address, probably that of a proxy server or a public institution, thinks it would be hillarious to change “Greek Mythology” to “Geek Mythology“, or “east” to “yeast“.

It is a known fact that there are what are referred to as Vandalbots roaming the world wide web, which are nothing more than simple scripts that find and edit articles with nonsensical rubbish at uncontrollable rates. Well, at least uncontrollable on deserted articles, on which nobody has worked in for a while.

Occasionally, though, such articles pop in web searches. Luckily, even an article that has not been touched for over four months (it’s quite long considering the average frequency of edits on articles) is reverted back to its original form in a single click, as I frequently try to do when I spot such an article, but it’s still not enough.

Especially when it comes to the aforementioned bots, simultaneous edits on multiple articles make it even a harder problem to tackle.

It is, of course, possible for an administrator to revert all the changes by the vandals and spammers in a single click, but manual reversing of the damage and further edit on the pages can cause this function not to work properly.

But what about the main question at hand: why? Just… why even bother?

Fine, switching a sentence like “when they got married, she was 15 years old” to “when they got married, she raped a 15 year old boy” might be funny (if you ponder about it for some time), but just entering random stuff, repetition of letters, meaningless numbers and worst of all, removing the whole article and replacing it with stupid netspeak, not only is it not original, but it’s just a waste of time.

I have even witnessed a case where this guy claimed to be a hacker. Way to go, guy, for having vandalised an easily editable, open-to-public wiki page and calling you a hacker for it. Probably another 14 year old trying to pose.

I also consider excessive information on the popular culture section in most articles as vandalism. Sometimes the trivia information might be fun to read, but a reference in the article of Godot such as “there wuz a FF7 character called gogo” is just crossing the line. The sad thing is, this person’s records didn’t really show vandalism per se, but rather small and unimportant edits. This “kid” is not considered as a vandal, but rather just a horrible editor.

The solution? Cut public access. Make it a rule that one MUST be a registered member in order to make any changes on any article. At least with that way, banning a user account would be much simpler.

It is not possible to do a background check on everyone who registers, and it’s not expected from the community anyway. What is expected by many is, however, a simple limit to who may have editing access to the website, by making edits more traceable to individuals rather than IP addresses that might be used by hundreds in any given day.