Posts by Rachel Williams18

I honestly think you could score way better deals than those junk pieces...

Wait, what exactly are you trying to pull off here?

Microsoft PowerPoint is actually pretty decent if you just need to show some basic charts.
I haven't really messed around with Microsoft Word for this kind of stuff—never used it that way, honestly.
Then again, you could always just whip something up in any random graphic design app... I mean, why not?

If this is for a website or something, there's Google Charts.
https://developers.google.com/chart/
But yeah, you’re gonna need someone who actually knows their way around JavaScript to get that thing running properly.

There are also a ton of those online chart generators out there that do a surprisingly good job.
http://www.onlinecharttool.com/

Oh, absolutely

mechanical keyboard🙂

That’s the only kind of board I’m ever buying from now on.

And honestly? I’ll probably just grab one at those cheap flea markets—you know, those little corner stalls near Kevin’s place over in Chicago🙂
You can find anything there... some old Dell, an IBM... maybe even one of those clunky old Commodore relics🙂

I’ve totally trashed all my rubberized ones. They just feel way too mushy to me, and the keystrokes have this weird, greasy sliding feeling
I need that tactile feedback! I want my family to actually hear me when I smash the Enter key.

The only official Wacom rep here in the States is Finder.

Those guys at the firm are super easy to deal with, really approachable. So, first thing's first—I picked up a Bamboo. And honestly? I was pretty blown away by what it could do, even though the whole Bamboo series is basically marketed toward hobbyists. But since I (call me a pro, if you must...) needed something more serious, I had to go with an Intuos.

A few months back, I grabbed an Intuos 4 ( M)

Man, this thing is built like a tank—top-tier materials, killer design, and the features are just insane. Plus, the software support is totally seamless; it plays nice with everything from Adobe CS5 and Corel to 3D Max and Maya... you name it.

Bottom line: if you’re just getting your feet wet with graphic tablets, you’re gonna be stoked with the Bamboo series too.

You can check out the pricing for all the different models over on Finder's website.

It’s not just about this vs.

Look, free will is basically the engine behind these whole karmic meridian things... It's how all that spiritual energy actually shifts—like, it matures from pure thought into raw emotion, and finally hits the physical plane as actual words, actions, or stuff you do in the real world.

Every time one of those meridians completes a full loop, that’s a single karmic cycle right there.

Look, if your image is rocking a bunch of different colors, the trace is gonna spit out separate vectors grouped by those specific hues. You can totally break them apart though—just right-click that traced image and hit ungroup all.
Once they’re ungrouped, just click off onto the empty canvas and you're free to mess with them however you want... total creative control, right?

The end result really just depends on how the original pic looks. But hey, if you want to turn each vector into an actual path, you can easily tweak things—just head down to the bottom right corner and toggle fill color off and switch outline color on.

rapidtrucker14 said:does anyone actually know how to draw out a logo if I've just got a .jpeg lying around? I need it as vectors so I can actually work with it... what's the name of the tool for this stuff?

Look, you can always just manually trace the outlines using the Freehand tool (F5)... or—if you don't want to go crazy—just run a trace on the jpeg. Just right-click the image, hit trace, and you can tweak the settings to get it looking right. It basically just turns that crappy raster mess into a vector automatically.

wearyrider16 said:🙂 It feels like we’re constantly being fed nothing but lies. Whether it’s the news, politicians, religious leaders, or even just some shady boss at work, everyone seems to be playing a game. I’m reaching out to those of you who feel just as disillusioned and out of place in this mess as I do. I want to share what I’ve learned and why things have become so broken. I’m just passing along the truth I heard from people who actually live with humility and integrity—that’s really what keeps me going in this fleeting, hollow life. I just hope at least one person out there gets where I'm coming from. 🙂 ...I can't just keep these truths to myself. That would be selfish, plain and simple. Pozy. 😉

It's headed exactly where it's meant to go.🙂

If you actually "open your eyes" to any given lie, you'll realize it's really just a mask truth wears. Sometimes those lies are actually better for people's sanity—I mean, sometimes the raw truth is just too much to handle, right? It blinds you. Honestly, how boring would life be if everyone just told the truth all the time?

Without the lies, we wouldn't even know the truth was there to begin with. There's gotta be some kind of harmony or balance—these extremes just spinning together in this crazy whirlwind of life...

If you look closer, maybe even step slightly outside the lines, you'll see that truth and lies are just playing this massive game that we're all invited to participate in.

Zachary Mendoza2 said:Rachel Williams18, I find your perspective quite compelling; in fact, I tend to lean in that same direction. New insights primarily emerge from the slow evolution of existing knowledge rather than sudden "eureka" moments (and yes, I am aware that the history of science often allows us to trace discoveries this way). But that is precisely the point: humans are not particularly adept at experiencing true eureka moments. It seems we are exceptionally well-equipped to absorb and process information from our surroundings, which is a legacy of our species. Sudden breakthroughs, or the act of true creation—not delving into the potential mechanisms behind them just yet—are not typical for humans, and I wonder how capable we actually are of achieving them.
By the way, we have drifted slightly toward discussing eureka moments as if we were only talking about inventions and scientific discoveries. The concept I termed "original thought" would encompass any personal creation, including artistic expression, or even those breakthroughs that involve reinventing the wheel. While the term is broad and difficult to define, I believe we can recognize it intuitively. It describes a situation where someone who has spent their entire life using a hammer and watching others work suddenly conceives of a way to make a better hammer. It would be truly tragic if such an idea never occurred to them, and if the entire advancement of the hammer, and everything else, was merely the result of accidental improvements accumulating over time. Furthermore, we should dismiss the story of Archimedes' eureka moment as a mere fairy tale; we ought to demonstrate the incremental ideas that eventually led to the principle of buoyancy.

hollowtrucker77, I agree. Creativity requires leisure time, when a person can contemplate things beyond immediate necessities, such as eating or fleeing from a predator. However, this confirms that creativity is the product of an active thinking process, rather than a component of genetic inheritance.

Look, I’m an artist, and I see you aiming that "original idea" concept mostly toward creative expression. But I gotta tell you, you’ve tripped over a massive logical pitfall here. This is more of a philosophy topic, where people actually have to stick to certain rules if they don't want the whole discussion to turn into pure fiction. Mental gymnastics is a grand sport, sure, but it requires training and actual athletic conditioning. Without that, any attempt at a pole vault—with or without the pole—is just gonna end in a total disaster for the athlete, no matter how cool their starting pose looks or how expensive the equipment is.

The core thing about art is that it’s freeform; it doesn't demand proofs or rigid rules, unlike scientific work, which is totally bound by strict, unchangeable laws. Rationality and imagination constantly bleed into each other—one often triggers the other—even though they’re technically living in completely different worlds.

Trying to find a philosophical framework that bridges these two extremes is basically impossible on an analytical level—maybe (like I said before) in some experimental, conceptual way that needs serious refining if you're going to present it as a finished product. Honestly, I wouldn't even touch that mess... it already smells like a tautology from the jump.

Zachary Mendoza2 said:We consider humans more intelligent than animals, possessing mental capacities far beyond them. Speech, abstract reasoning, technology—these define us. At times, it feels as though we have grabbed fate by the reins, establishing ourselves as a unique species: creators and rulers over nature.

Conversely, psychology views the human psyche through two lenses: genetic inheritance and learned behavior.
Regarding learning, we acquire knowledge through experience, meaning we absorb whatever we encounter.
In this context, I want to introduce the concept of "original thought," which I will attempt to clarify, as it is something I am curious about.

Unlike simply adopting what already exists, true insights occasionally emerge. These are breakthroughs like mastering fire, or the use of tools and weaponry. The first person to conceive of such things could not have observed them beforehand. It was not programmed into their genes. They simply thought, and they realized. They did not copy an existing insight; they created a new one. I would argue that such moments are what make us creators. Without them, we are merely blank slates upon which the environment can write anything, potentially leading to total indoctrination (Goebel's successes serve as a known example supporting this view).
Now, I am interested in this human creativity we take such pride in. Truly, we enjoy countless blessings today—the fruits of human genius—and we can trace their development through written history over the last few millennia. Writing allowed us to accumulate all this progress across generations, moving from very simple lives to our modern era in just a few thousand years. One might assume humans are highly capable of "original thought" given how much has been achieved in such a short span.
However, if we expand the timeline to several million years since the first human appeared, we see that over those millions of years, humans did not invent fire, weapons, agriculture, or anything else that significantly improved life 😕
There were thousands upon thousands of generations of people born, living, and dying without anyone ever conceiving of anything new. 😕
Based on this, one might say that humans are actually quite incapable of "original thought." Indeed, looking back at recorded history, the knowledge that accumulates is largely learned through experience; "original thought" is only required when creating entirely new knowledge, which is relatively rare considering the number of people and the length of their lifespans.

This is what puzzles me—how capable is a human, truly, of creating or independently gaining new insights? Currently, I have the impression that we are not particularly gifted in this ability. Even my own life experiences suggest that most people are simply dullards who lack the capacity for independent thought. 👎

Except it isn't just a feeling. Humans actually tame these insanely powerful, fundamental forces of nature. We harness gravity, play around with magnetism, nuclear force... I could go on forever.
Today, we have the power to wipe out the entire planet, build virtual worlds, create AI, and even peer into events happening way outside our own galaxy—stuff at distances that are honestly hard to wrap your head around.

Humans rule this planet, and honestly, without being fake-modest, we can say we are the ruler of whatever space we find ourselves in. That power is undeniable, no matter how we choose to use it.

Our physical size compared to the mind-blowing vastness of space and the raw strength of the forces running the show doesn't change the fact that evolutionary progress is moving forward. Because humans long ago blew past the limits of their environment—which, logically, should have kept us stuck just surviving on basic instincts. "More, stronger, better" is also a natural force, deeply rooted in some mystical, spiritual level of being. Out of all the forces in the known universe, that one is truly the biggest, because it breaks every boundary, growing faster and faster with no beginning and no end...

Zachary Mendoza2 said:We consider humans more intelligent than animals, possessing mental capacities far beyond them. Speech, abstract reasoning, technology—these define us. At times, it feels as though we have grabbed fate by the reins, establishing ourselves as a unique species: creators and rulers over nature.

Conversely, psychology views the human psyche through two lenses: genetic inheritance and learned behavior.
Regarding learning, we acquire knowledge through experience, meaning we absorb whatever we encounter.
In this context, I want to introduce the concept of "original thought," which I will attempt to clarify, as it is something I am curious about.

Unlike simply adopting what already exists, true insights occasionally emerge. These are breakthroughs like mastering fire, or the use of tools and weaponry. The first person to conceive of such things could not have observed them beforehand. It was not programmed into their genes. They simply thought, and they realized. They did not copy an existing insight; they created a new one. I would argue that such moments are what make us creators. Without them, we are merely blank slates upon which the environment can write anything, potentially leading to total indoctrination (Goebel's successes serve as a known example supporting this view).
Now, I am interested in this human creativity we take such pride in. Truly, we enjoy countless blessings today—the fruits of human genius—and we can trace their development through written history over the last few millennia. Writing allowed us to accumulate all this progress across generations, moving from very simple lives to our modern era in just a few thousand years. One might assume humans are highly capable of "original thought" given how much has been achieved in such a short span.
However, if we expand the timeline to several million years since the first human appeared, we see that over those millions of years, humans did not invent fire, weapons, agriculture, or anything else that significantly improved life 😕
There were thousands upon thousands of generations of people born, living, and dying without anyone ever conceiving of anything new. 😕
Based on this, one might say that humans are actually quite incapable of "original thought." Indeed, looking back at recorded history, the knowledge that accumulates is largely learned through experience; "original thought" is only required when creating entirely new knowledge, which is relatively rare considering the number of people and the length of their lifespans.

This is what puzzles me—how capable is a human, truly, of creating or independently gaining new insights? Currently, I have the impression that we are not particularly gifted in this ability. Even my own life experiences suggest that most people are simply dullards who lack the capacity for independent thought. 👎

Way too abstract. You can't really see that through actual facts.

Zachary Mendoza2 said:We consider humans more intelligent than animals, possessing mental capacities far beyond them. Speech, abstract reasoning, technology—these define us. At times, it feels as though we have grabbed fate by the reins, establishing ourselves as a unique species: creators and rulers over nature.

Conversely, psychology views the human psyche through two lenses: genetic inheritance and learned behavior.
Regarding learning, we acquire knowledge through experience, meaning we absorb whatever we encounter.
In this context, I want to introduce the concept of "original thought," which I will attempt to clarify, as it is something I am curious about.

Unlike simply adopting what already exists, true insights occasionally emerge. These are breakthroughs like mastering fire, or the use of tools and weaponry. The first person to conceive of such things could not have observed them beforehand. It was not programmed into their genes. They simply thought, and they realized. They did not copy an existing insight; they created a new one. I would argue that such moments are what make us creators. Without them, we are merely blank slates upon which the environment can write anything, potentially leading to total indoctrination (Goebel's successes serve as a known example supporting this view).
Now, I am interested in this human creativity we take such pride in. Truly, we enjoy countless blessings today—the fruits of human genius—and we can trace their development through written history over the last few millennia. Writing allowed us to accumulate all this progress across generations, moving from very simple lives to our modern era in just a few thousand years. One might assume humans are highly capable of "original thought" given how much has been achieved in such a short span.
However, if we expand the timeline to several million years since the first human appeared, we see that over those millions of years, humans did not invent fire, weapons, agriculture, or anything else that significantly improved life 😕
There were thousands upon thousands of generations of people born, living, and dying without anyone ever conceiving of anything new. 😕
Based on this, one might say that humans are actually quite incapable of "original thought." Indeed, looking back at recorded history, the knowledge that accumulates is largely learned through experience; "original thought" is only required when creating entirely new knowledge, which is relatively rare considering the number of people and the length of their lifespans.

This is what puzzles me—how capable is a human, truly, of creating or independently gaining new insights? Currently, I have the impression that we are not particularly gifted in this ability. Even my own life experiences suggest that most people are simply dullards who lack the capacity for independent thought. 👎

Flawed analysis. Look, humans learn and move forward through experience. First, they saw the power of fire in nature—maybe after some lightning strike set a forest ablaze. Over time, they got a better handle on that force and learned how to use it. It wasn't some sudden "eureka!" moment where an idea just popped into someone's head... the process of mastering fire took years, centuries, maybe even eons. Before anyone ever took flight, they spent ages watching birds. All the great inventors pulled their inspiration and knowledge from what they observed around them, from nature itself.

Zachary Mendoza2 said:We consider humans more intelligent than animals, possessing mental capacities far beyond them. Speech, abstract reasoning, technology—these define us. At times, it feels as though we have grabbed fate by the reins, establishing ourselves as a unique species: creators and rulers over nature.

Conversely, psychology views the human psyche through two lenses: genetic inheritance and learned behavior.
Regarding learning, we acquire knowledge through experience, meaning we absorb whatever we encounter.
In this context, I want to introduce the concept of "original thought," which I will attempt to clarify, as it is something I am curious about.

Unlike simply adopting what already exists, true insights occasionally emerge. These are breakthroughs like mastering fire, or the use of tools and weaponry. The first person to conceive of such things could not have observed them beforehand. It was not programmed into their genes. They simply thought, and they realized. They did not copy an existing insight; they created a new one. I would argue that such moments are what make us creators. Without them, we are merely blank slates upon which the environment can write anything, potentially leading to total indoctrination (Goebel's successes serve as a known example supporting this view).
Now, I am interested in this human creativity we take such pride in. Truly, we enjoy countless blessings today—the fruits of human genius—and we can trace their development through written history over the last few millennia. Writing allowed us to accumulate all this progress across generations, moving from very simple lives to our modern era in just a few thousand years. One might assume humans are highly capable of "original thought" given how much has been achieved in such a short span.
However, if we expand the timeline to several million years since the first human appeared, we see that over those millions of years, humans did not invent fire, weapons, agriculture, or anything else that significantly improved life 😕
There were thousands upon thousands of generations of people born, living, and dying without anyone ever conceiving of anything new. 😕
Based on this, one might say that humans are actually quite incapable of "original thought." Indeed, looking back at recorded history, the knowledge that accumulates is largely learned through experience; "original thought" is only required when creating entirely new knowledge, which is relatively rare considering the number of people and the length of their lifespans.

This is what puzzles me—how capable is a human, truly, of creating or independently gaining new insights? Currently, I have the impression that we are not particularly gifted in this ability. Even my own life experiences suggest that most people are simply dullards who lack the capacity for independent thought. 👎

Look, I just can't get behind that. Seriously. Give me even one actual, relevant example where some guy supposedly invented "something massive" without having a deep grasp of the knowledge passed down before him... or without just straight-up copying nature itself. Like, seriously? You've got those massive Encyclopedia Britannica volumes on the history of science right there—it's all laid out perfectly in order. We're talking everything from guys using animal bones as clubs to landing on the moon, high-tech robotics, splitting atoms, and all that crazy stuff. It's all connected!

The whole concept of being "commanded or subservient" has basically mutated from its raw, primal roots into the most insanely complex system we know—how society itself is structured. Let’s be real, the Great Goddess mentioned in the first post doesn't stand a chance against a guy swinging a club. A club is a club, and at the end of the day, he's the one calling the shots.

On a completely different note—and this has nothing to do with matriarchies or patriarchies, I swear—something else entirely has dressed up in the gown of some unfairly oppressed, downtrodden harlot. This thing? It’s thirsty for revenge and power. It’s the kind of force that wants to tear down the very foundations of society, or rewrite the eternal laws of the cosmos... or even the laws of physics and hard science.

Yeah, right. As if.

It’s wearing a mask. It isn't who it claims to be.
And honestly, neither is he.

It’s a total masquerade. Vicious, soulless, and completely devoted to its master.

That Great Goddess? She’s just a lady in red—basically a masked Golem.